export_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the multi-step process (manifest, poll, download, unzip), the overwriting behavior, the return value, and the meaning of with_data/with_tests. This is excellent transparency for a tool that mutates the filesystem.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: process steps, warning, return type, and parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and flows logically. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-step, destructive, no output schema), the description explains the full workflow, return value, overwrite warning, and user confirmation requirement. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior and side effects without additional context.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains out_dir (destination) and its overwriting behavior, folder_id (the folder for export), and with_data/with_tests (include data/test cases). However, the 'name' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap. Overall, it covers 4 of 5 parameters with meaningful context.

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 this tool exports a package from Workato to local: it builds a manifest, builds/polls the package, downloads and unzips it. This distinguishes it from siblings like deploy_package (which presumably goes local -> Workato) and validate_package (validation only).

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 clear context for when to use: it is an export operation for a folder, with a warning to confirm with the user because it overwrites out_dir. It does not explicitly mention when-not to use or name alternatives, but the process is well-defined and the destructive nature is highlighted.

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