Export modules to files

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

Annotations already signal a destructive, idempotent write; the description adds real context beyond them: preview-by-default until apply=true, unchanged files left alone, and critically that exported files are copies that do not affect the Office file until xlide_import_modules runs. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loads what it does, then preview/apply semantics, then the copy relationship. Most sentences earn their place, though 'Only when the user asks for it' is slightly redundant with the preview framing and could be tighter.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers reversibility, destructive scope, and preview behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

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 apply and file_path are already documented. The description reinforces apply's semantics (write vs preview) but does not clarify delete_stale (which the schema itself flags as requiring user confirmation), so it adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 (writes) and resource (every VBA module) plus output format (.bas and .cls), with the motivation (source control or review). It is cleanly separable from siblings like xlide_list_modules and xlide_read_module.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('Only when the user asks for it') and a context (source control/review), and names the inverse operation xlide_import_modules. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or contrast against other export/review siblings, so it falls short of a full 5.

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