Export documents to an ERP/accounting format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It transparently discloses a key side effect: the exported file is written to disk and its path returned. However, it does not mention whether documents are marked as exported by default, what the markAsExported parameter does in practice, or any permission/authorization requirements. This is moderate disclosure for a tool that potentially mutates state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format list, followed by the optional filter and the output behavior. Every word earns its place; no vague filler or repetition of schema field names without added meaning.

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 moderately complex tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential use case, the return value, and a practical application (comparing with accounting ledger). It omits details on format-specific parameters (the 'parameters' JSON string) and the implications of markAsExported, which could cause an agent to misuse the tool, but the core behavior is well specified.

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?

The schema already covers 83% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaningful context for 'format' by listing all enum values, for 'filter' by calling it a StructuredFilter and explaining its purpose (narrow the set), and for the output via savePath by explaining that the path is returned. This goes beyond the baseline of schema-heavy coverage, though 'parameters' and 'organization' remain under-explained.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Export', identifies the resource ('documents'), and enumerates the supported formats. It also states the outcome (file written to disk, path returned), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling document retrieval tools like wflow_search_documents or wflow_get_document.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to export documents in a specific accounting/ERP format. It also mentions optional narrowing with a StructuredFilter, which signals a comparison to search/filter tools. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use wflow_search_documents for in-app filtering', so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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