export_and_combine_all_versions_all_formats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool starts exports and returns combine guidance rather than combined files, but it omits important behaviors such as whether exports run asynchronously, whether export jobs are created and tracked, what side effects occur, and whether permissions or profile context are required.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action and resource before the secondary outcome. It earns its place by communicating both the side effect and the return value in minimal 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?

The tool has six parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only captures the general workflow. An agent would not know how to choose between export_type and export_types, what interview_status options are valid, how output_dir is used, or what 'version-aware combine guidance' actually includes, so the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. 'One or more formats' loosely maps to export_type/export_types, and 'all questionnaire versions' maps to questionnaire_id_or_title, but profile, output_dir, and interview_status are left entirely unexplained despite having no schema-level descriptions or enums.

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 a specific verb ('Start exports'), a clear resource ('all questionnaire versions'), and a distinctive outcome ('return version-aware combine guidance'). It clearly implies a combined export-and-combine workflow, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools with very similar names such as export_and_combine_questionnaire_versions or combine_versioned_exports.

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 phrase 'all questionnaire versions in one or more formats' implies the intended use case: when an agent needs the full multi-version, multi-format export workflow. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like export_all_formats, export_all_questionnaire_versions, or combine_versioned_exports, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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