create_board_export_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses enterprise plan restriction, Discovery access token requirement, board limit, supported formats, asynchronous job ID return, polling requirement, and 14-day result retention.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and limit come first, followed by prerequisites, format details, and next steps. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not document return values in detail. It still covers the key async lifecycle, prerequisites, formats, limits, and result retention, which is complete for an agent to call this tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the format parameter (SVG default, HTML, PDF) and implies board_ids via the 1000-board limit, but does not explain org_id or provide detail about board_ids contents.

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: 'Start a board export job', with scope 'up to 1000 boards'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_board_export_job_status and get_board_export_job_results.

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?

Explicitly describes the workflow: start the job, poll get_board_export_job_status, then download via get_board_export_job_results. It also states the enterprise-only requirement, giving the agent clear when-to-use context.

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