origin_export_graph

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention important details such as whether the tool overwrites existing files (despite an overwrite parameter), how it resolves conflicts when both active and named graphs are specified, or supported file formats. This lack of transparency hinders correct agent invocation.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool. It does not explain behavior on file conflicts, supported formats, or error handling. Given many sibling tools, more contextual completeness would help an agent choose correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide parameter details, but it only mentions 'active or named' graph. It does not explain the 'path' parameter (e.g., file extension, absolute/relative), 'graph_name' behavior (null exports active), or 'overwrite' semantics. Significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 'Export the active or named Origin graph to an image/PDF file,' specifying the verb (export), resource (Origin graph), and output format (image/PDF). This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like origin_view_graph or origin_get_graph_info.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It simply states what the tool does without usage recommendations or exclusions.

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