appflowy_export_workspace

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It briefly describes the output structure but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or failure modes. The schema provides a constraint on the path (must be empty/non-existent), but the description does not reinforce this.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover prerequisites, error behavior, and output structure. It references export_space for layout but does not detail the output or common pitfalls. Incomplete for a workspace export tool.

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% (workspace_id lacks description; path's description is in nested object). The description does not explain workspace_id or provide additional context for parameters beyond what the schema already gives. It adds value about the output layout but not about parameter usage.

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 workspace to Markdown files, with each space becoming a top-level folder. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like appflowy_export_space and appflowy_export_page by specifying the scope (every space in a workspace).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like appflowy_export_space. The description mentions that pages follow the export_space layout, but does not provide context for choosing workspace-level export over space-level export.

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