ynab_export_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by specifying return format (file_path, transaction_count, file_size_kb) and error conditions. It does not reveal file overwrite behavior, but given idempotentHint, it's not critical.

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?

Organized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Errors), front-loaded with the core action. No superfluous text, though a slightly more succinct phrasing could be used. Earns a 4 for structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to cover over half of the input parameters. With 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should be more thorough. Only returns and one error case are mentioned, leaving significant gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Only 3 of 7 parameters (budget_id, account_id, since_date) are described, leaving type, minimal, filename, and category_id undocumented. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 it exports transactions to a local JSON file, with specific verb 'Export' and resource 'transactions for a budget'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ynab_list_transactions or ynab_get_transaction by emphasizing file persistence.

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?

Provides examples and error handling ('No default budget set' → run ynab_set_default_budget first), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like ynab_list_transactions for in-memory data. Usage context is implied but not fully differentiated.

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