export_keyword

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two useful behaviors: the export creates a new owned job, and include-bearing exports are rejected. It omits permissions/auth requirements, reversibility, and what happens to the produced job, so it is only partially transparent for a mutation tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the main action is stated first and the constraint second. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the definition should say more about the model input and the resulting job. As written an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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% for the single required 'model' parameter. The description alludes to 'a standalone keyword model' but never clarifies whether the parameter is a path, id, or name, so it does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 (Save/export) and resource (a standalone keyword model into a new owned job), which is clearer than most siblings such as inspect_keyword_deck or list_jobs. It does not explicitly name how it differs from those siblings, but the action and output (new owned job) are unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are named; an agent cannot tell from this text why it would export rather than inspect a keyword deck. The only constraint given is that an include-bearing export is rejected, which is a precondition rather than usage routing.

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