report_export

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that the operation is asynchronous by returning an export ID to check status, which is useful context. However, it does not mention how long exports may take, whether exports can be cancelled, or any other operational side effects beyond creating an export job.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, then gives the key output behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

For a three-required-parameter tool with a complete schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the action, the supported formats, and the return value. The main gap is that it does not explicitly name the status-checking endpoint or the response field name, but the 'returns an export ID to check status' phrasing makes the async workflow reasonably clear.

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 100%, with all three parameters described and the format parameter fully enumerated. The description's mention of formats mostly duplicates the enum and adds no extra semantic information about the parameters, so the schema carries the full weight as expected.

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 and object: 'Export a report to a file format' and lists concrete formats (PDF, PPTX, PNG). It also clarifies the unique role of this tool by stating it returns an export ID to check status, distinguishing it from sibling tools like report_get_export_status.

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?

The description implies the intended workflow: initiate an export, then use the returned ID to check status. However, it does not explicitly name the companion report_get_export_status tool or state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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