vk_post_user_07d2b46cb22f

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose authentication requirements and alias handling, but it incorrectly labels the body as 'optional' when the schema marks it required, which is misleading. It also omits details about response behavior or side effects (e.g., whether an export email is triggered).

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 concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It includes some generic proxy mechanics but stays within a short paragraph. Minor typo (double period) does not significantly hurt structure.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain expected outcomes. It does not mention what happens after the request is made, the response format, or any asynchronous/email delivery aspects. Completeness is notably lacking for a side-effect-triggering operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds confusion rather than clarity. It calls the body 'optional' and says it is a 'JSON request payload', while the schema describes it as a required password string. This contradiction undermines the semantic value.

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 'Request a user data export' and identifies the exact endpoint 'POST /user/export/request', distinguishing it from other vk_post_user_* sibling tools. The verb 'Request' and resource 'user data export' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage when a user data export needs to be requested, and it mentions authentication is required. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it. The 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' characterization gives some context but lacks exclusion guidance.

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