Request a Boxes export

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about the provider-approved endpoint, but it does not spell out side effects such as triggering an email export or that the result may be asynchronous. The confirm parameter's description mentions the email side effect, but the tool description itself stays thin.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The endpoint qualifier earns its place by explaining the delivery mechanism without bloating the description.

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?

For a confirm-only action with one required boolean parameter and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, consent, and channel adequately. It could more fully describe what happens after the request, such as the asynchronous delivery of an export email, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the confirm parameter is fully documented as consent to sending an export email. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 pairs a specific verb ('request') with a specific resource ('full account export') and adds the qualifier 'through a provider-approved endpoint configured by the user.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling inventory and search tools, which are not export-related.

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 implies when to use it, namely when a full account export is desired, and it identifies the delivery channel. However, it does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings or state when not to use it; the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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