recipe_exportPreset

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 usefully discloses that the preset is validated first and that failure returns the list of valid preset names, but it omits important export-side behavior such as whether an existing file is overwritten, what permissions are needed, and how timeout failures are handled.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, method, and key validation behavior without filler. Every clause earns its place and the agent gets the most important information first.

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 export tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient purpose and error-handling context for invocation. It is somewhat incomplete because it does not address overwrite behavior or how it relates to sibling export tools, but the schema covers parameters and there is no return value to explain.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including the presetName example and document selection behavior. The description adds the validation behavior around presetName but no additional syntax or meaning beyond what the structured parameters already provide, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb, resource, output format, and method: exporting the active document to PDF using a named PDF export preset. This distinguishes it from the generic sibling export_document by requiring a named preset, giving an agent enough to identify the tool without opening its 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?

The description implies when to use it: exporting the active document to PDF via a named export preset in one call. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool against alternatives such as export_document or export_batchFolder, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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