Export Space

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the admin-rights requirement, that the return value is a download link expiring in 10 minutes, and the non-obvious lazy-build semantics (Docmost generates the zip only when the link is opened). That lazy-build detail is exactly the kind of hidden behavior an agent would otherwise misjudge as an immediate file.

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 with the action first, then the permission gate, then the return-value caveat. Nothing is repeated and nothing is padding.

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 needn't be spelled out; the description still supplies the critical operational details — auth requirement, link lifetime, and deferred build. For a 3-parameter export tool this is fully sufficient.

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% and every parameter is already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description corroborates format enumeration and the attachments flag ('optionally with its files') but adds no format defaults, size limits, or interaction details beyond 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 and resource ('Export a whole space'), plus the output artifact (zip of Markdown or HTML) and optional attachment inclusion. The scope word 'whole space' implicitly separates it from the sibling export_page, which handles a single page.

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 concrete precondition — 'Needs admin rights in the space' — which tells the agent when the call will fail. It stops short of explicitly naming export_page as the alternative for single-page exports, so routing between the two is still partly inferential.

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