export_tracks_to_file

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond them: it discloses that two files are produced, their exact formats and fields, the destination folder, the YANDEX_MUSIC_EXPORT_DIR override, and the source/kind dependency.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by format/prerequisite detail. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical field list is slightly granular.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the side effect (files written to a known location) is fully covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented file_name and owner_uid, which an agent would have to guess at.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all four parameters. It meaningfully explains source (likes/playlist) and kind (required for playlist), but file_name and owner_uid are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (export/write to file), the exact resource (ALL tracks — likes or a playlist), and the output form (.txt and .csv), explicitly noting it does NOT push them into chat. That phrase alone separates it from siblings like get_liked_tracks and get_playlist_tracks, which do load results into chat.

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?

Clear context for use — when you want files on disk rather than chat output — and it states a concrete prerequisite: kind is required when source="playlist". No exclusions or named alternative tools are given, so it stops short of the explicit when-not guidance.

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