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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds almost nothing beyond that — it doesn't disclose that this kicks off an asynchronous job, whether the export is polled afterward, or how to track completion. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal added behavioral context.

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, clean sentence with no wasted words — structurally sound. However, it borders on a restatement of the title ('Start Clarity Export'), so the conciseness is partly a function of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, yet the description provides no guidance on the meaning of the inputs, the nature of the export job, or how to verify the result. An agent has insufficient context to call this correctly without probing other tools or schemas.

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 only 17% (only team_id has a description), and the description explains zero parameters. The required bpmnXml, processId, and connectionInstanceId are entirely undocumented in both the description and schema. With such low coverage, the description was obligated to compensate and failed to do so.

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 states a clear action ('Start') and a specific resource ('Clarity → SAP Signavio export job'). The directionality distinguishes it from generic export tools like exportCases. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely-related siblings such as getClarityExport or listActiveClarityExports, which share the export domain.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getClarityExport, listActiveClarityExports, or exportCases. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing connectionInstanceId or a saved process) or any exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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