Export PDF

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: it runs without activating Illustrator, never invokes Computer Use, and its output needs human verification. It does not cover file overwrite behavior or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The final human-verification warning is slightly advisory but earns its place as a workflow constraint for a print-ready deliverable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With three parameters, a nested options object, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what the tool produces but not what is returned (e.g. the resulting file path) or what happens when output_path already exists. It is sufficient to invoke correctly but leaves the agent guessing about results and side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the nested options object with per-field descriptions, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no meaning about preset, options, or output_path beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Export print-ready PDF") and clarifies the output is print-ready, which is meaningful. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling tool "export" or from preflight_check/validate_cards, leaving the agent to guess when this PDF-specific export is preferred.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the generic "export" sibling. The only routing-adjacent statement is about execution mode (background, no Computer Use), which describes how it runs rather than when to pick it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.