rew_export_measurement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context — output directory and that existing files are not overwritten — but leaves open what happens on a name collision (silent skip, error, suffix) and whether the call returns a path.

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 tight sentences with the destination and format front-loaded and the non-overwrite guarantee immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly because required details are simply absent.

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 five-parameter write tool with zero schema descriptions, a nested object and no output schema, two sentences are not enough — an agent cannot tell what 'query' or 'data_type' do, nor what the tool returns. Only the no-overwrite behavior and target directory are fully resolved.

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% across 5 parameters, including a nested 'query' object, so the description must compensate and largely does not: measurement_id, filename, data_type and query are never explained. Only the 'format' enum is indirectly echoed by the 'as CSV or JSON' phrase.

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 ('Save') and resource ('complete decoded response data'), specifies the output formats (CSV/JSON) and the destination (REW_OUTPUT_DIR). It does not name a sibling like rew_read_output or rew_get_measurement, so the agent must infer when exporting beats simply reading, but the operation itself is 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to export versus fetching data with rew_get_measurement or reading files with rew_read_output, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'Save'.

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