bridge_export_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the output path must be new and must sit inside the write root, implying a write operation with an overwrite guard. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior on existing paths, or what happens to the target file, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the precondition appended. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause carries 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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether omitting drawing_uuids exports everything, what 'project' expects, or what a failed write returns.

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 compensate. It clarifies the 'output' parameter (new path, inside write root) and gestures at 'drawings' via drawing_uuids, but says nothing about the required 'project' parameter or what a null drawing_uuids means (all drawings vs none), leaving two of three parameters semantically unexplained.

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 and resource ('Export native drawings to one PDF') and implicitly separates itself from bridge_export_ifc and bridge_render_view by naming the PDF target. It never explicitly names an alternative, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark for sibling differentiation.

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 constraint 'requires a NEW output path inside write root' gives a precondition for successful use, which is more than most. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over bridge_export_ifc or bridge_render_view, and no statement of what happens if the path is not new.

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