wrike_start_data_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states the action without any consequence: no mention that the export job runs asynchronously, that a job ID might be returned, or that one must poll the status endpoint. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely triggers a background process.

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 extremely terse—one short sentence. While this is concise, it is under-specified, lacking any useful structure or elaboration. A tool with one parameter and a related status endpoint would benefit from more detail, making this too minimal to be considered appropriately sized.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool that starts an export job. It does not explain the export lifecycle, that the job is asynchronous, or how to check its status via the sibling tool wrike_get_data_export_status. Additionally, the 'resources' parameter is ambiguously described without clarifying whether it expects IDs, names, or something else. The lack of an output schema and annotations further amplifies the inadequacy.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'resources' with the description 'Resources to export (Tasks, Folders, etc.)', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantics, but the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'Start a data export job' clearly states a specific action (start) on a resource (data export job). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_data_export_status by implying initiation rather than status retrieval, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as wrike_get_data_export_status for checking job progress, nor any prerequisites or follow-up steps. The only context is the tool name and the sibling list, which the agent must infer from.

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