swdraw_export_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that it acts on the active drawing by default with a fallback to args.drawing, and that a PNG preview is emitted for visual checking, but says nothing about where files are written, whether existing files are overwritten, or what preconditions (e.g. an open drawing) are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action and its outputs come first, with parameters relegated to parentheses.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the core action and both artifacts. However, with no annotations and an opaque args object, more detail on required keys, file output location, and preconditions would be needed for an agent to invoke this reliably.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'args' parameter is an opaque anyOf object, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It names three keys (drawing, path, png), which is genuinely valuable, but the syntax and structure of args remain unclear and the naming is ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (active drawing) plus the concrete outputs (PDF, PNG preview). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like swdraw_build_drawing and swdraw_revise, which produce or modify drawings rather than exporting artifacts.

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?

The parenthetical '(or args.drawing)' implicitly defines the default-vs-override behavior, so usage can be inferred, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternative tools. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the workflow context.

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