appflowy_export_space

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: export structure (folders for child pages, README.md), skipping non-document views with warnings, and the requirement for an empty destination directory to avoid overwrites. This provides good transparency.

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 at three sentences, front-loading the main action. It efficiently conveys key points about output structure and constraints. Minor improvement could be a clearer separation of the skipping behavior, but it's already well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success message or errors). It mentions warnings for skipped views but omits overall return value. The input schema covers required params, so input side is complete, but output behavior is missing.

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 low (only path has a description). The tool description adds context that the space_view_id and workspace_id refer to the target space/subtree, which is helpful but not detailed. The path constraint is already in schema. Overall, it adds some value beyond schema but does not fully compensate for missing param descriptions.

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 exports a space or page subtree to a local directory of Markdown files, with specific structure details. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning mirroring appflowy_import_markdown_directory and contrasting with other export tools.

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 use for exporting a space or page subtree, which differentiates it from single-page or workspace exports. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide comparisons to alternative export tools like appflowy_export_page or appflowy_export_workspace.

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