origin_export_worksheet_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only states the basic export action. It does not disclose important behaviors like whether it overwrites files by default (parameter 'overwrite' defaults to true), whether it requires a file path to be valid, or how it handles missing sheets. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence, 8 words), which is efficient but sacrifices essential detail. It front-loads the key purpose but fails to add value beyond the tool name. A 3 reflects minimal viability, but it could be longer to include parameter hints.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to specify book and sheet, the effect of overwrite, or what output to expect (despite having an output schema). The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly for non-trivial cases.

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?

Description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (path, book_name, sheet_name, overwrite). Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the agent must infer parameter meanings solely from names, which may be ambiguous (e.g., 'path' - file path or something else?). This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 clearly states 'Export an Origin worksheet to a CSV file,' specifying the action (export), resource (worksheet), and output format (CSV). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like origin_export_graph or origin_export_preview, which target different objects. However, it could be more precise about which worksheet (e.g., active or by name).

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, such as import tools or other export tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., worksheets must be open) or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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