Export the dashboard as a file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals the file-writing side effect and important format traits (self-contained HTML, print CSS, no external references), plus the return contract. It omits failure/error behavior when overwrite is false or when outputPath is invalid, but the schema's overwrite description partially covers that.

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 a single front-loaded, information-dense sentence with no filler. The bilingual duplication is the only repetition, but it is reasonable for a ja/en tool.

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?

It is complete enough for a simple export tool: all 4 parameters are fully described in the schema and the description covers the output format, the return value (path, size, open instructions), and the artifact constraints. It falls just short of fully complete because it does not address overwrite-conflict or invalid-path behavior explicitly and no output schema 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value beyond the schema by detailing what 'html' output means (self-contained, print CSS, no external references), but it adds nothing about lang, overwrite, or outputPath beyond their schema entries.

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 ('Write'), a specific resource ('current engagement dashboard'), and the exact delivered artifact (Markdown or self-contained static HTML). It clearly differentiates from sibling display tools like get_dashboard and open_dashboard by emphasizing file output and return metadata.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool when the current engagement dashboard must be saved to a file, and the returned path/size/open instructions make the post-call flow explicit. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or compare with export_deliverable, so it stops short of a 5.

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