export_document

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 that conversions go through a normalized model, explains how each direction works ('builds a fresh Word file' vs 'serializes parsed blocks'), and states error behavior ('raise a clear export_error listing supported conversions'). This goes beyond a simple 'convert' statement and gives the agent a realistic expectation of side effects.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place—the second sentence adds valuable implementation detail. No fluff or redundant phrasing, making it efficient and readable.

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, so the return format is presumably covered. However, the description leaves key parameters undefined and does not specify default behaviors (e.g., what happens if output_path is omitted, whether include_comments affects both directions). Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of five parameters, these gaps prevent it from being complete.

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 only references target_format indirectly ('markdown'|'docx'), but does not explain the roles of 'path', 'title', 'output_path', or 'include_comments'. The parameter names might hint at their function, but the description offers no elaboration. This is a significant gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Convert the document to another supported format'. It explicitly names the two supported formats, distinguishing this from all sibling tools which are read, search, or edit operations. The unique purpose is unmistakable.

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?

While the description does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the sibling list confirms no other tool handles format conversion. The stated purpose makes the usage context evident. It also warns about unsupported pairs, giving an implicit hint that this is the only conversion tool. No explicit when-not guidance, but it's not needed given the clear distinction.

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