acf_export_field_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'export' which implies non-destructive read-only behavior, but it does not disclose required permissions, output format details beyond 'ACF JSON format', or any side effects. Middle score due to basic disclosure without depth.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, zero wasted words. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could specify that the output is a JSON string, but the purpose is clear. Slight lack of return value detail, but adequate for a simple export.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters and describes 'key' as 'Field group key'. The description adds no further context (e.g., key format like 'group_...'), so it does not exceed the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 exports a field group in ACF JSON format, specifying the verb, resource, and format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like acf_get_field_group (retrieve) and acf_import_field_groups (import).

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 implies use for import/backup but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like acf_get_field_group or acf_import_field_groups. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is provided.

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