dm_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two behavioral facts: the output payload is JSONL and private points require an explicit confirm flag (a confirmation/safety gate). It does not say whether the operation is read-only on the store, whether it errors or silently skips private points without confirm, or what it does when the target path already exists.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the payload contract; nothing is wasted. The pseudo-signature notation "{point_id*, path*, [confirm]}" is compact but slightly cryptic compared to plain prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the key payload fields are covered. For an export tool writing to a filesystem path, though, the description omits overwrite behavior, error cases, and what "labelled" filters, leaving meaningful 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 description coverage is 0% and the schema hides everything behind a single opaque `payload` object, so the description does real work by enumerating point_id* and path* as required and confirm as optional. It falls short of 5 because it never explains what a point_id refers to or whether path is a file or directory target.

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?

"Export labelled rows as JSONL" names a specific verb (export), resource (labelled rows), and output format (JSONL), which is far better than a tautology. It does not differentiate against the near-identical sibling do_export, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two export tools to pick.

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 conditional "Private points need confirm:true" gives a real prerequisite rule for one class of input, which is useful usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer dm_export over do_export or the other dm_* siblings, and no note on what happens if confirm is omitted for a private point.

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