start_log_export

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

Beyond annotations (which only flag non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses async queuing, that no rows or file are returned, Enterprise plan gating, and the 403 failure mode. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs and cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the asynchronous caveat and hard gating. No filler.

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?

Output schema handles return values, and the description covers the async model, failure mode, and sibling navigation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and the single export_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description implies it references an existing job but adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start processing a previously created log export job') and explicitly differentiates the operation from get_log_export and download_log_export. An agent can identify exactly what this does and what it doesn't.

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?

Explicitly says to use get_log_export to poll progress and download_log_export after completion, and imposes the prerequisite that the job must already exist. This is textbook when-to-use routing with named alternatives.

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