export_space

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral details: the output is written to a caller-specified path or a temp file. This goes beyond the schema by explaining how results are delivered, though it does not mention overwrite behavior or temp-file lifecycle.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and output format are front-loaded, and the output-delivery detail is placed second.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the caller receives, especially when a temp file is used, but it does not mention the return value or how to locate the exported file. It also omits behavior for include_attachments and any default values for optional parameters, leaving important gaps for a tool with four parameters.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for format ('Markdown or HTML') and output_path ('or a temp file'), but include_attachments is left entirely undocumented, and no default behavior for format or attachments is provided.

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 operation (export), the resource (a whole space), and the output format (a zip of Markdown or HTML). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling export_page by the explicit 'whole space' scope.

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 wording implies the tool is for exporting an entire space rather than an individual page, which provides some context. However, it does not explicitly mention export_page as the alternative for single-page exports or state when not to use this tool.

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