export_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context such as supported formats, auto-naming for directory paths, and return of path/counts/file size. However, it does not mention overwrite semantics or side effects on existing files, which is a notable gap for a write operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary verb 'Write', then efficiently lists formats, path rules, and return values. Every line earns its place with relevant detail, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers core behavior, format options, path handling, and return summary, making it quite complete. However, it omits explicit usage guidance and overwrite behavior, which would make it fully comprehensive.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'format' by listing valid values (parquet, csv, json, ndjson) and for 'path' by explaining directory vs. full file path behavior. However, it leaves 'source_id' and 'overwrite' without additional explanation beyond their parameter names.

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 writes a source to disk via DuckDB COPY, listing supported formats and path behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'unload_source', so it lacks explicit distinction while still being specific and informative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unload_source or load_source. It only implies usage for exporting a source, without exclusions or references to other tools.

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