Export content plan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this produces output rather than reading state. The description adds the format-to-destination mapping (Sheets/Notion/Airtable, calendar apps), but never says whether the result is returned inline or written to disk, or what outputPath/local mode means behaviorally.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the formats, then the invocation hint. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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 13-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and invocation but leaves the delivery mechanism (inline payload vs. file, role of outputPath) and most optional parameters unexplained. Adequate to call, not adequate to predict the result.

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 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate. The format list maps cleanly onto the `as` enum and the 'same arguments as content_plan' line helpfully delegates semantics for the shared parameters, but the remaining nine parameters (offer, product, dates, postsPerWeek, focusEvents, outputPath) get no clarification.

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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (a content plan from content_plan) plus the three output formats and their target integrations. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling content_plan, which generates rather than exports, though the description never says so explicitly.

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?

"Pass the same arguments you used for content_plan" is a concrete, non-obvious invocation instruction that tells the agent exactly how to prepare the call. It gives clear context but names no exclusions or when-not conditions (e.g., what to do if no plan exists yet).

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