sql_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the basic action. It fails to disclose that overwrite defaults to true, that existing targets may be replaced, or how workspace, lakehouse, and warehouse context is resolved.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action and destination. It is efficient, though it sacrifices enough detail that the length is not fully appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. An agent is not told how to specify destination context, what overwrite does by default, or what happens after the export completes.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaningful detail for the nine parameters. It only hints at file format, leaving query, target_path, overwrite, workspace, lakehouse, warehouse, export_lakehouse, and type 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 and resource: it exports query results to OneLake and specifies CSV or Parquet formats. The core action is distinct from tools like sql_query or report_export, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sql_query, onelake_write, or report_export. It does not mention prerequisites, context requirements, or cases where another tool should be preferred.

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