com_export_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the invisible Word instance, full-fidelity output behavior, the default pdf_path behavior, that the source .docx is never modified, and the Word installation requirement.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: mechanism, fidelity details, default path, side-effect guarantee, and prerequisite. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a two-parameter export tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential call requirements: input path, optional output path behavior, source-modification guarantee, and external dependency. The output schema can handle return-value details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains pdf_path's default and relationship to the source filename, and the phrase 'source .docx' effectively identifies file_path as the input document. It does not spell out every path-format detail, but the two parameters are meaningfully clarified.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Export the document to PDF'), states the mechanism ('invisible Word instance'), and clarifies fidelity behavior with concrete elements like fields, footnotes, TOC, headers/footers, and images. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling operations such as com_import_pdf or export_table.

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 description provides clear operational context: exporting via Word, default output naming, and the prerequisite that Word must be installed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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