cdp_update_data_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool updates an existing definition, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The note about 'folder_id' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences: one states the purpose and parameter format, and the other explains 'folder_id'. It's front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value (e.g., clarifying JSON usage and folder movement). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., auth, side effects), full parameter semantics, and usage context. While the output schema may cover return values, the description doesn't adequately prepare the agent for correct invocation in this environment.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'folder_id' by explaining it 'moves the export between folders,' which is helpful. However, it doesn't clarify 'body' (described as 'Pass updated fields as a JSON string' but without details on structure) or 'tenant_id', and 'export_id' is left unexplained. With 4 parameters and low coverage, the description provides only partial semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update an existing data export definition.' It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('data export definition'), which is straightforward. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_update_audience_def' or 'cdp_update_report_def', which also update definitions but for different resources, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions that 'folder_id moves the export between folders,' which hints at a specific use case, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'cdp_create_data_export' or 'cdp_delete_data_export'), nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with little context for decision-making.

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