fusion_export_bulk_data

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it explains why destructiveHint is true (queued process cannot be recalled, not business-data mutation), discloses the comma-joining rule, the refusal of comma-containing parameters, and the explicit user confirmation requirement. This is exactly the context an agent needs.

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 organized into a purpose statement, a behavioral note, and an Args block, and every section has a purpose. It loses a point because it contains the inaccurate schema-reference sentence, which adds confusion rather than value.

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?

It covers purpose, destructive nuance, confirmation, and parameter semantics (albeit with one error), and an output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed. It is incomplete in that the parameter-format contradiction undermines the agent's ability to invoke the tool confidently; it also does not point to the job-status sibling for tracking after the async queue.

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 description adds useful detail for job_name, notification_code, and confirmed, but its parameter guidance conflicts with the input schema. It claims the schema declares 'parameterList' as a single string and instructs that parameters are 'joined with commas,' while the actual schema declares parameters as an array of strings. This is misleading for invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run an extract job and leave its output in UCM.' It returns a request id, and states it is the mirror of fusion_import_bulk_data, which clearly differentiates it from the import sibling and the generic fusion_submit_job.

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?

It names the sibling mirror and explicitly contrasts the parameter format with fusion_submit_job, giving clear context for selection. It does not, however, spell out explicit 'use when/when-not' criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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