Export to PDF

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description usefully adds that rendering matches the show view and that the output name defaults to the project name. It does not disclose whether an existing file at the path is overwritten, whether directories are created, or what the call returns.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The trailing default-filename note is slightly compressed but still earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple 3-param export tool with no output schema, but it leaves real gaps: the meaning of `out`, overwrite behavior, and whether a success message or path is returned.

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 67%: path and width are documented in the schema, and the description adds the default-name behavior for the output. However, the `out` parameter has no description anywhere and is never mentioned in the description, leaving one of three params semantically opaque.

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 and resource ("Exports the presentation to PDF") plus output granularity ("one page per slide"). It is distinguishable from export_pptx by format, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 or when-not guidance and no reference to export_pptx as the alternative for PowerPoint output. Only the default output filename behavior is given, so the agent must infer that this is the PDF-format counterpart.

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