Export an ArchiMate model as Archi CSV

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that files are written to disk, the exact CSV set produced, what fromEngagement: true adds, and that the reply includes import steps. It does not cover failure behavior, but overwrite semantics are already in the schema.

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?

Two compact bilingual sentences front-load the core operation, then the special flag behavior, then the reply payload. Every clause adds information and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary side effects, the exact output files, and the reply behavior. Parameters are fully documented in the schema; the only minor gap is the lack of an explicit description of the full return value beyond the import steps.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the schema by enumerating what fromEngagement: true turns into elements (stakeholders, concerns, transition states, capabilities, work packages, benefits, deliverables), which helps an agent decide whether to set the flag.

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 states a specific action — writing an ArchiMate model to disk as the Archi CSV import set — and names the exact file set (elements/relations/properties.csv). This differentiates it from sibling export_archimate_open_exchange by format and purpose.

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 clearly establishes context: use this when you need Archi-importable CSV output, and the reply includes Archi import steps. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear enough for routing.

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