export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses filesystem writes, directory creation when missing, overwrite behavior, and the default safety intent ('nothing is destroyed by accident'). It also warns about artifact expiration, which is important behavioral context for the agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage rule, then moves to a structured Args explanation. It is longer than minimal, but every sentence earns its place: usage timing, filesystem exclusivity, artifact expiry warning, and detailed parameter instructions. The structure is easy to parse.

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 4-parameter complexity and an output schema that likely describes the return value, the description is complete. It covers when to use the tool, what it does, how parameter interactions work, directory creation, overwrite safety, and naming templating. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter in the Args section: refs as artifact id or list, dest as file path or directory, name as a filename template with placeholders like '{n:03d}{ext}', and overwrite semantics with defaults. This goes well beyond the bare 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save one or more results to a real location on disk.' It also differentiates the tool from its siblings by explicitly stating it is 'the only tool that writes to the user's filesystem.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit usage timing: 'call it once at the end, when they have said where the output should go.' It also provides a clear when-not-to-use rule by warning never to hand an artifact id back as a finished file and explaining that artifacts expire. This effectively distinguishes when export is needed versus when it is not.

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