export_package

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds real context beyond them: the output location, the failure-on-existing-folder behavior, and the fact that the copy is self-verifying (returns verified/passed/failed). It does not mention permissions or how large books are handled, but the mutation semantics an agent needs are disclosed.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: action and destination, naming rule, return values, and collision/alternative behavior. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates what comes back (the folder, the files, and the verification result). Combined with the naming constraint, overwrite rule, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: "Give a short folder name, not a path" clarifies intent beyond the schema's character-class constraint, and "fails, unless overwrite is true" explains the consequence of overwrite rather than just restating "replace an earlier export".

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 and resource ("Copies the book, with a sealed manifest") plus the exact destination (/tmp/spr-books/exports) and the audience (auditor or counterparty checking with spr-verify). It also explicitly separates itself from export_xbrl_csv, so an agent can pick between the two exports without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative (export_xbrl_csv) and the condition that selects it (spreadsheet or reporting format), which is explicit when-not guidance. It also states the collision rule — fails if the folder already holds an export unless overwrite is true — giving the agent the precondition it needs before calling.

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