workiva_export_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Export a document' without explaining how the export is delivered, whether it initiates a download, any permissions required, or what the output contains. This provides almost no behavioral 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 clear one-line summary followed by an argument list with descriptions. Every sentence contributes information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 description is too minimal for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in context. It does not explain the purpose beyond 'export', lacks usage guidance, and provides no insight into what happens after invocation. While the output schema exists, the description fails to address basic selection criteria and behavioral context, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides basic descriptions for all three parameters: document_id as 'The document UUID', format with the allowed values, and options as 'Format-specific options (optional)'. This adds some meaning beyond the schema titles and enums, but the options description is vague and format merely repeats the enum values. It's adequate but not rich.

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's function with a specific verb 'export' and a resource 'document,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that export other resources (e.g., export_file, export_spreadsheet, export_style_guide). It clearly conveys the primary action.

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. It does not mention alternative tools like get_document or other export tools, or any prerequisites or intended use cases. The usage context is entirely implicit.

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