export_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely important trait — the output is shaped by the layer's live selection and definition query — but omits other critical behaviors: whether an existing dataset at out_path is overwritten, what happens to the selection/definition-query interaction with the `where` parameter, and what permissions are needed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the behavioral caveat set off by em-dashes so it does not dilute the main clause. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key filtering behavior. Still, for a write-to-disk tool with no annotations it should say whether out_path is overwritten, what dataset types are acceptable, and whether add_to_map applies only when a map context exists.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by clarifying that there is already an implicit where (the layer's definition query) that the schema's 'Extra where clause' parameter supplements, and that selection state is an implicit filter not represented by any parameter.

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 ('Export') and resource ('a layer') plus the destination ('to a new dataset'), which is enough to distinguish it from export_map_view, export_layout, and export_map_series in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: mentioning that the export honours the current selection and definition query signals this is the tool to use when you want a filtered/selected subset exported. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., get_features or run_geoprocessing_tool for plain copies).

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