vk_post_user_c52831ed2397

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirements and parameter alias behavior, but it misleadingly calls the body field 'optional' while the schema marks it required. It also fails to mention the response format or any side effects of downloading an export, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 short and mostly to the point, with three sentences covering purpose, usage, and authentication. Minor issues include a double period and the redundant phrase 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' after the first sentence, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect from the tool. It does not mention the return type or contents of the download, nor any prerequisites beyond authentication. Given the one-parameter complexity and absence of annotations, the description is incomplete for safe invocation.

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% for the body parameter, which already explains it's a user password. The description adds the notion of a JSON request payload and mentions camelCase/snake_case aliases, but these are not clearly applicable to the single body parameter and the 'optional' wording contradicts the schema. Thus the description adds little value beyond the schema.

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 the tool downloads a user data export, using a specific verb and resource. It further specifies it's a raw proxy for POST /user/export/download, distinguishing it from the many other vk_post_user_* sibling tools that handle different user operations.

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 gives clear context: it downloads a user export via a specific endpoint, and provides instructions on how to pass parameters (body, path/query, aliases). It also notes authentication is required, which guides the agent. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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