export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail not present in structured fields: the output format is derived from the `output` extension. However, it never says that a file is written, where it lands, or that an existing file is only replaced under some condition, which is exactly the context a write tool needs.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the conversion scope front-loaded and the format-selection rule attached. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. What is missing is input-side completeness: the roles of `path` (source) and `output` (destination) and the effect of `overwrite` are never resolved, so an agent must guess the file-writing contract for a mutation-flagged tool.

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 carry the burden, and it does partially: it enumerates the accepted extensions for `output` and explains that the extension drives behavior, which the schema does not. But `path` and `overwrite` receive no semantic treatment at all, so half the parameter meaning is left undocumented.

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 precise verb (Convert) and resource (a PDF) with the full set of target formats, and explains the selection mechanism (the extension of `output`). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_pdf, merge, or render_page, which do not convert formats. An agent can identify this tool 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 rather than stated: the agent can infer 'use this when you need a non-PDF format,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no named alternative. With 22 siblings, a sentence on when export is preferable to something like read_text or ocr would be valuable and is absent.

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