export_data

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: files land in the project's native source format (CSV, Excel...) and the return value is the saved paths. It omits permissions, overwrite behavior for an existing output_dir, and duration/error characteristics of a write-heavy job.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the output location and format. Nothing is padded, though a sentence on parameter meaning would be better use of the space than none.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the description covers the action and file format. However, with three required opaque parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves an agent guessing at the two project-identifier arguments.

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%, so the schema gives only bare titles. The description clarifies output_dir as the destination for saved files, but leaves company and definition_group entirely unexplained even though both are required and identify which project runs.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Run an existing DMF export data project') and states the visible effect (data files saved to output_dir). It is clear enough to contrast with import_data and create_data_project, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 word 'existing' implies the project must already exist, but the description never says to use list_data_projects/create_data_project first, nor when to prefer this over import_data. No when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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