export_batchFolder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context — documents are opened invisibly and results are reported per file — but it omits failure semantics for a partially failing batch, whether opened documents are closed afterwards, whether existing PDFs are overwritten (the schema defaults overwrite=false), and any permission requirements.

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 em-dash sentence with zero waste, front-loading the batch scope and the conversion target before the side-effect detail. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 5-parameter write-producing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and return shape only in passing ('reports per-file results'). It leaves the document_id/batch mismatch, partial-failure behavior, and overwrite policy unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict the call's outcome.

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 sits at 60%: folderPath, outputDir and document_id carry descriptions while overwrite and timeoutMs have only defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the folder concept, and it never explains the oddly out-of-place document_id parameter on a folder-wide batch operation.

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 pairs a specific verb with a precise resource and scope: 'Export every InDesign (.indd) file in a folder to PDF in one run.' The folder-wide batch nature cleanly separates it from the single-document sibling export_document and from export_preflight, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied ('in one run' signals the batch alternative to looping a per-document export), but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. An agent can infer the batch case but gets no help deciding between this and export_document or recipe_exportPreset.

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