export_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is asynchronous ('Start an export job') but does not mention required permissions, job lifecycle, side effects, or how to retrieve the result. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the action and provides the key parameter detail. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 three parameters and an output schema, the description only addresses one parameter and lacks context on job handling, workspace scope, or how the export artifacts are delivered. It is insufficient for the agent to understand the full workflow, even with the output schema present.

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 partially does for 'format' by giving examples ('PDF, PPTX, PNG, etc.'), but the list is vague with 'etc.' and does not cover 'report_id' or 'workspace_id' at all. Meaning is added only for one parameter and incompletely.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Start an export job for a report.' It differentiates from sibling tools (list_reports, refresh_dataset, execute_dax_query) as the only export-related tool. The mention of format adds specificity.

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 usage context (exporting a report) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or any exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions under which this tool is preferred, so guidance remains implicit.

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