export_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the format list: no destination behavior, no overwrite semantics, no permission or open-document requirement, no indication of what 'package' produces. Listing the formats is the one piece of genuinely useful context.

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 the verb and resource first and the format list parenthetically, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented options and filePath, but there is no filler or redundancy beyond the enum restatement.

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 4-parameter I/O tool with a nested free-form options object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: where output is written, what is returned, and what options are valid. An agent could call it with only a format, but could not confidently use filePath or options.

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 only 25% — just document_id is documented — and the format enum is self-describing. The description restates the format values (redundant with the enum, though it hints at user-facing naming) but adds nothing about filePath or the nested options object, which is a free-form additionalProperties bag. It partially compensates but leaves the two most opaque parameters unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (export the document) and enumerates the target formats, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as export_batchFolder, export_preflight, dataMerge_export, or recipe_exportPreset, and the 'active document' phrasing does not acknowledge the document_id parameter.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool versus the other export-family tools (batch folder export, preset-based export via recipe_exportPreset, preflight). There are no stated preconditions, such as whether the document must be saved or open, or what happens if an identical file already exists.

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