dataMerge_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether an existing file at outputPath is overwritten, whether the directory must exist, what permissions or open-document state are required, or what side effects occur on the document. For a tool that writes files to disk, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded; nothing needs trimming. It is efficient but thin, so it scores well on structure without earning a top mark for information density.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of context and it omits the data-merge workflow position, file-writing semantics, and format tradeoffs. An agent could plausibly call it at the wrong point in the pipeline or overwrite a file unintentionally.

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 33%: only document_id is documented (via the schema itself), while format and outputPath are bare. The description adds nothing about format semantics (raster vs. vector tradeoffs of pdf/jpg/indd) or about outputPath conventions such as absolute vs. relative paths, extension handling, or overwrite behavior.

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?

Specific verb (export) plus resource (the merged document) and destination (a file), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like export_document, export_batchFolder, or recipe_exportPreset, leaving the 'merged' qualifier as the only differentiator an agent can lean on.

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 on when to use this versus export_document or export_batchFolder, and no prerequisites stated — e.g. whether a data source must be selected via dataMerge_selectDataSource or records merged via dataMerge_mergeRecords first. An agent has to infer the entire workflow position of this call.

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