clients_export_saga_xml

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

No annotations are provided (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or sideEffect), so the description carries the full burden. The description only mentions the return value (XML document as text) but does not disclose whether this is a pure export, whether it requires accounting export settings/preferences to be configured, whether it mutates any state (e.g., marking records as exported), or whether it checks for required conditions before exporting.

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 efficient sentence plus a return-type note. It front-loads the core purpose clearly without wasted words. Slightly more structure (separating purpose from return value) could aid parsing, but it's appropriately brief.

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?

This is a clients export with no annotations, no output schema, and only a single optional parameter. The description is thin for an export operation — it doesn't mention what filter/criteria apply, whether deleted/inactive clients are excluded, expected prerequisites (e.g., configured Saga export settings), or how the returned XML text should be handled or saved. The sibling suppliers_export_saga_xml and various invoice Saga exports create ambiguity that the description doesn't resolve.

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% for the single companyId parameter, and the schema already explains it as a UUID override with default to active company. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage — baseline 3 applies. However, there's no guidance on what format companyId must take or interactions with the active-company selection mechanism.

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 it exports clients in Saga XML format for import into Saga accounting software, specifying the verb (export), resource (clients), format (Saga XML), and purpose (import into Saga software). It also notes the return type (XML as text). However, it doesn't distinguish from closely-related siblings like suppliers_export_saga_xml, invoices_export_saga_xml, and other Saga export variants beyond the resource type implicit in the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include invoices_export_saga_xml, invoices_export_receipts_saga_xml, invoices_export_payments_saga_xml, and suppliers_export_saga_xml, all of which are Saga XML exports. Without stating when clients vs suppliers vs invoices export is appropriate or any caveats about required setup (e.g., accounting integration configuration), the agent must infer purpose from naming alone.

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