export_cobie_from_graph

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose side effects such as writing a file to output_path, whether the graph is modified, or whether existing files are overwritten. The full burden falls on the description, which only states the high-level export action.

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, clear sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to scan.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description alone is too sparse for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. It omits parameter semantics, output behavior, and any details about the optional validate flag, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 input schema provides only types and titles, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain project_id, output_path, or the optional validate parameter, so an agent cannot infer their meanings or expected formats.

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 a specific action ('Export'), a specific resource ('derived COBie Excel snapshot'), and the source ('canonical project graph'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_cobie_to_graph and validate_cobie.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_cobie_to_graph, load_cobie_summary, or get_cobie_headers. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool.

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