ynab_export_transactions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it writes to a local file (non-destructive but creates output) and specifies return values (file_path, transaction_count, file_size_kb). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, Examples, and Errors sections. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, the Args section lists only a subset of parameters, which could be confusing.

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 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should cover more. It explains the main flow and error handling but omits half the parameters and doesn't mention file system side effects. The presence of an output schema (not shown) might mitigate some gaps, but the description itself is incomplete.

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 only documents 3 of 7 parameters (budget_id, account_id, since_date), missing category_id, type, filename, and minimal. This leaves the agent uninformed about crucial filtering and output options.

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 'Export all transactions for a budget to a local JSON file', providing a specific verb, resource, and output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ynab_list_transactions which likely return a list rather than a file.

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 examples ('Export all transactions: call with no args', 'Export account: set account_id') and an error case ('No default budget set' → run ynab_set_default_budget first). However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings or explain when to use specific parameters like type, minimal, or filename.

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