export_data_workbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (writes the file to disk), the return payload (path, total row count, size), and hard exclusions (FIXTURE_LIBRARY and the scoped tables). It omits permission/auth requirements, but the core behavioral profile is covered.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and output format, then the optional-parameter behavior, then the hard constraints. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains the return values (file path, row count, size), and with no annotations it covers the write side effect and table restrictions. A note on permissions or destination overwrite behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds value beyond the schema: the explicit list of tables that cannot be included (FIXTURE_LIBRARY, LOOK_DETAILS, CUE_LIST_DETAILS, LOOK_BOARD_ENTRIES) is not in the schema, and it reinforces the omit-for-default and empty-list behavior.

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+resource ('Export ... project tables as one multi-sheet Excel (XLSX) workbook') and clarifies the one-sheet-per-table output shape. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the single-table sibling export_data_table, but never names it, so an agent must infer the choice.

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 useful conditions for the 'tables' argument (omit for the default set, FIXTURE_LIBRARY and scoped tables are not allowed), but never states when to prefer this multi-sheet tool over the sibling export_data_table or list_data_export_tables. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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