export_combined_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: combining nodes, one page per node, auto-ordering by canvas position, and quality/resampling being the highest among existing PDF settings. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files, overwrites, or requires auth), but for a non-mutating export operation, the disclosed details are substantial and add context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core function, then provides the comparative usage and quality detail. No extraneous information; every sentence contributes.

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?

Given no output schema and two params, the description covers the essential context: what it does, ordering, and the alternative. It does not explain the return value or any error conditions, but for a straightforward export tool these are minor gaps. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema covers both parameters thoroughly (fileId and nodeIds) with descriptions, so the schema provides the necessary semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Export multiple nodes combined into a single PDF file, one page per node.' It identifies the resource (nodes) and the output (PDF), and differentiates from the sibling 'export' by noting it merges nodes into one file instead of separate files. This distinguishes it from alternatives.

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 explicitly specifies when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of "export" when the user wants the nodes merged into one PDF rather than separate files.' This gives a clear condition and names the alternative, fulfilling the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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