configure_accounting_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose the side effects of configuration (e.g., whether it modifies settings, overwrites existing config, requires permissions, or is reversible). The word 'Guide' is vague about whether the tool performs an action or merely instructs.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose. No useless filler, and the format examples earn their place. However, it is arguably too brief given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It lacks parameter explanations, expected behavior, prerequisites, and return values, making it hard for an agent to invoke 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 must compensate. It adds meaning only for 'format' by listing examples (FEC, Sage, Cegid), but leaves 'separator', 'date_format', and 'export_model' entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to fill these fields.

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 states a specific verb ('configurer') and resource ('export comptable'), naming example formats (FEC, Sage, Cegid). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'export_accounting_entries' which likely performs the actual export, whereas this tool configures it.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_accounting_entries' or 'configure_accounting_autolettering'. The description implies configuration use-case but gives no explicit context or exclusions.

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