Export modules to files

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds crucial context: the preview-by-default behavior, the apply flag gate, the copy semantics (editing exported files does not affect the Office file), and the delete_stale user-consent requirement. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the destructive risk.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded with the core action, then the preview default, then the copy semantics. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs: default preview, apply gate, delete_stale consent, and the relationship to xlide_import_modules. It doesn't describe the output schema's return values, but an output schema exists, so that burden is lifted. Minor gap: it doesn't state what happens if the export folder is invalid or the file is locked, but that's not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context for apply (preview vs write) and delete_stale (ask user first), but it doesn't add much beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Writes'), a clear resource ('every VBA module in an Office file'), and the output format ('.bas and .cls files'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like xlide_read_module or xlide_import_modules. It also names the inverse operation (xlide_import_modules) and the source-control/review purpose, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 explicitly says it previews by default and writes nothing until apply=true, and it names the complementary tool xlide_import_modules as the way changes get back into the Office file. It also mentions delete_stale requires asking the user first, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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