nass_export

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — the export is produced 'on the server' rather than returned inline — but says nothing about the return value (path/URL/job handle), overwrite behavior, or permissions.

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 tight sentence with the action and supported formats front-loaded and no filler. It could be slightly stronger by ordering the server-side detail before the purpose clause, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 2-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the agent is left without the essentials: what the call returns, where the exported file lands, or how to retrieve it afterwards. The description is directionally right but under-informed 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% and output_format has no enum, so the description's enumeration of SRT/TXT/JSON genuinely adds allowed values the schema lacks. However, job_id is undocumented and no format-specific behavior (e.g. whether JSON includes timestamps) is explained.

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 ('transcript') plus the supported output formats. It is distinguishable from read siblings like nass_get_transcript, but it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 trailing phrase 'for later sharing/analysis' hints at intent but gives no when-to-use condition or when-not guidance. With nass_get_transcript in the sibling list, the description never explains why an agent would export rather than simply fetch the transcript.

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