pinterest_run_specialized_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly labels the tool 'non-mutating' and states that START 'creates only a report/export artifact; it never updates delivery entities,' which is strong side-effect transparency. It does not cover async polling behavior or permissions, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 compact sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no repetition of schema fields or filler.

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?

This is a complex 7-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description gives no START-vs-STATUS parameter matrix, no per-exportType payload guidance, and no return behavior. An agent can grasp the tool's purpose but is not equipped to confidently construct valid calls for all variants.

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 43%, yet the description does not explain the roles of request, adAccountId, includeDetails, bulkRequestId, or token relationships. It only loosely maps export categories to the exportType enum, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 uses specific verbs ('Start or inspect') and states a concrete resource: non-mutating Pinterest data jobs for MMM, bulk advertiser entity downloads, or catalog diagnostics. It is clear about the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely named siblings like pinterest_run_catalog_report or pinterest_get_catalog_diagnostics.

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 implies when to use the tool by naming its three export categories and the START/STATUS operations. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the many sibling reporting tools, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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