Export Contingent Values

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

Description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it specifies the output location (EXPORT_ROOT), that two CSVs are produced, and that execution is refused if either target already exists. Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive), so this extra transparency is valuable. Doesn't explain permissions or overwrite behavior beyond refusal.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key constraint. Efficient, though the terseness borders on underspecified for the parameter set.

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?

With 3 undocumented required parameters, an output schema, and a moderately complex operation, the description is too thin. It doesn't clarify parameter roles or the distinction between input paths and the EXPORT_ROOT output destination, leaving the agent to guess at invocation details.

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% with 3 required parameters (dataset_path, field_groups_csv, contingent_values_csv). The description mentions ''.CSV'' output targets but does not explain what any of the three input parameters represent or how they relate to EXPORT_ROOT. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb (export) and resource (field groups and contingent values) and names output artifacts (two CSVs in EXPORT_ROOT). However it's terse and doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like arcgis_pro_export_attribute_rules or arcgis_pro_list_contingent_values beyond the object being exported.

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 versus arcgis_pro_list_contingent_values or arcgis_pro_export_attribute_rules. The only usage-like info is the refusal condition (existing files cause rejection), which is a precondition, not when-to-use.

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