odoo_export_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: output format, relation flattening, default field selection, and critical overwrite refusal with a forced override flag (ecraser=true). This is substantial, non-obvious behavioral context that helps the agent avoid data loss and understand transformations.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and key behavior; the second discloses the overwrite guard. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects of export behavior: file format, flattening, default fields, and overwrite protection. It does not detail the formatting of `domain` or `order`, but these are common in the Odoo ecosystem. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description is sufficiently complete for core usage, though some gaps remain.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the `fields` parameter (defaults to current fields) and `ecraser` (overwrite flag), but the remaining five parameters (model, path, limit, order, domain) are not described. While names imply some meaning, the description does not provide sufficient context for an agent to construct valid values, especially for `domain` and `order` which may require specific syntax.

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 the tool exports a search to a local .xlsx/.csv file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like odoo_import_file (inverse operation) and odoo_search/odoo_read (which return data in-conversation rather than to a file).

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 this tool: when a search result needs to be saved as a local spreadsheet file. It provides context about flatting relations and default fields, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the clear purpose and distinct behavior, the usage context is evident, though exclusions are not stated.

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