export_custom_meta_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior fully. It does not explain what 'export' entails: whether it returns a file, triggers a download, is synchronous or asynchronous, or has side effects. No details about permissions, rate limits, or data handling are given. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's runtime behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification, so it is not a perfect 5, but it earns high marks for clarity of structure and economy of 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden to explain what the tool does and what the caller can expect. It fails to describe the output format, any side effects, whether the export is a download or in-response data, or any operational context. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only adds that export is 'by ID', implying the 'ids' array refers to custom meta field IDs. It does not clarify constraints (e.g., maximum number of IDs, whether IDs are required valid at call time, or what a numeric ID represents beyond the tool name). The parameter name is self-explanatory but lacks depth.

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 clearly states the action ('bulk export') and the resource ('custom meta fields'), and the 'by ID' qualifier specifies the input scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_custom_meta_fields and get_custom_meta_field, but the term 'export' is somewhat generic without specifying the output format.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when bulk export is appropriate, how it differs from listing or fetching individual fields, or any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the tool's own purpose without contextualizing its use.

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