export_artifact

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 does disclose the meaningful side effect (a new Google Doc/Sheet is created) and hedges the return contract ('when the server sends one'), which is useful. But it omits auth/Drive-scope requirements, failure behavior, and whether repeated exports duplicate documents — significant gaps for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return behavior, with no padding. 'RPC-backed' is implementation trivia that does not help an agent decide or call, a minor waste.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameter meaning are covered elsewhere. What remains thin is the external-system contract (permissions, doc placement, idempotency) for an operation that writes into a user's Google account.

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%, including an enum on target and a pointer to list_content for artifact_id, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (export), a specific resource (a finished Studio artifact), and the two concrete destinations (Google Docs or Google Sheets), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as content_download or generate_study_aid, leaving that routing to inference.

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 word 'finished' implies a prerequisite (the artifact must be complete), and naming the two targets suggests when to pick which. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of how this differs from content_download, and no mention of what to do when export is unsupported.

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