export_customizations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'With rollback' implies a safety mechanism but doesn't explain what is written, whether files are created or mutated, what confirm guards, or whether preview is non-destructive; these are significant gaps for a write-oriented tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; efficient. It could earn a 5 only if it spent those words on mode selection or parameter meaning rather than the vague 'with rollback' clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an unexplained preview/export duality, the description is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps 'app'. It says nothing about module, doctypes, confirm, or expected_preview — the latter clearly ties into the preview workflow yet is entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb (export) and resource (DocType JSON and customization fixtures) with a target (an app), which is clear enough to distinguish it from CRUD siblings like get_doctype_schema. However, it doesn't differentiate the 'preview' mode from an actual export or acknowledge the separate rollback_export sibling, leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope.

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?

It hints at two modes ('Preview or export') but never states when to choose one over the other, nor when to use the sibling rollback_export instead of the built-in rollback. No prerequisites or conditions are given for confirm/expected_preview, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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