vizcharter_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the operation is non-destructive ('without changing it') and describes the filesystem side effect ('new formats are added to the diagram's directory alongside existing exports'). This is solid but does not address potential edge behaviors like overwrite semantics or what happens on failure.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important side-effect note is included without bloating the description.

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?

The description, alongside a fully documented schema, gives an agent enough to select and invoke this tool correctly. It lacks an output-schema note about return behavior, but for a file-export tool this is a minor omission, and the side-effect behavior is explicitly disclosed.

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 three parameters. The description adds a light connection to 'formats or scales' but does not need to elaborate further because the schema fully captures the parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Re-export') and resource ('existing diagram (.vizc.json source)'), and clearly distinguishes this from creation or editing tools. It immediately tells an agent this is about converting an existing artifact into other formats, not creating or updating the diagram itself.

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 clearly states this is for an existing diagram and that it does not change the source, which implies it is for follow-up work after creation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like vizcharter_create or vizcharter_update as alternatives, but the 'existing' qualifier and 'without changing it' provide strong contextual guidance.

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