ncloud_datafence_create_file_export

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does add value: it discloses the approval gate that blocks the export, the per-request limits, and the dryRun preview behavior. It still omits whether the call is asynchronous, what it returns, and what triggers rejection.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core action and constraints front-loaded and the dryRun hint last. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts (approval workflow, size limits, preview mode). Only the return shape and synchronous/asynchronous nature are unaddressed, which is minor given the schema is fully annotated.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented. The description adds one constraint the schema lacks (2 GB per file) and restates the item cap, but otherwise defers entirely to the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Request a file export'), names both endpoints (Box NAS to Object Storage bucket), and gives hard scope limits (10 files, 2 GB each). An agent can distinguish this from create_file_import, get_file_export, and cancel_file_export without consulting sibling schemas.

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 'goes through export approval' clause and the 'Use dryRun=true to preview' directive give clear operational context and a recommended safe path. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g., list_file_exports or approve_file_export) or states explicit when-not conditions.

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