dataset_export_evidence_bundle

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds useful behavior about retaining name-only candidates in the bundle, but it does not explain overwrite behavior, where files land, or how apply_curation affects the output.

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 two compact sentences with the main action front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though that terseness contributes to missing operational details.

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 three-parameter export tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too sparse. It omits output structure, curation behavior, and how this export relates to sibling export tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly implies result_id via 'specified two-group results'. It says nothing about output_dir or apply_curation, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource: exporting all features and candidates from specified two-group results into a v2 evidence bundle. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as arf_export_evidence_bundle or dataset_export_differential.

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 does not state when to use this tool instead of dataset_export_differential or the arf-prefixed evidence-bundle export. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance beyond the implied export context.

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