export_data

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a non-read-only, possibly destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds value by specifying the default export path and the return value (absolute path). However, it does not elaborate on what 'destructive' means (e.g., overwriting existing files), which would enhance transparency.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by an Args list and Returns line. Every line is informative, with no filler words or redundant information.

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?

For a simple export tool with two parameters, the description covers the purpose, parameters, default path, and return format. The output schema is present, so return value details are not fully required in the description. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool, though it could mention overwrite behavior given the destructive hint.

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?

The schema has no descriptions beyond titles, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. The Args section explains both 'data_id' as the dataset ID and 'path' as the custom path with a default, which adds meaningful semantic context 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?

The description starts with 'Export dataset to disk for external script access', which uses a specific verb (export) and resource (dataset), and clearly states the purpose. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools that analyze, visualize, or preprocess data, as this is the only export tool.

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 clearly states the use case: 'for external script access', which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but given the distinct purpose among siblings, the context is clear enough.

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