mssql_export_table_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Export table data' and does not disclose that this creates a file on disk, respects overwrite=false by default, or that an optional connection string requires --allow-tool-connection-string. These are important side-effect and permission details that are left entirely to the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and immediately states the core operation. It loses a point because it is so terse that it omits the file-writing nature and any usage distinction, which may be more important than brevity for a tool with nine parameters.

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 annotations, no output schema, nine parameters, and many sibling tools, this description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It does not explain output file behavior, overwrite semantics, the optional connection string flag, or how this differs from query/import tools. The schema fills some gaps, but the description itself provides only a high-level label.

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 high at 89%, so the parameter definitions already carry most of the meaning. The description adds only the high-level format idea ('JSON or CSV'), which is already present in the format enum. With this coverage level, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither substantially helps nor hurts parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a resource ('table data'), and the target formats ('JSON or CSV'). This clearly distinguishes it from read/query tools like mssql_execute_query and from the inverse mssql_import_table_data. However, it does not explicitly say 'to a file' or mention filtering, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 the tool is for exporting table data into JSON/CSV, which is a reasonable inference from both the name and the phrasing. But it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over mssql_execute_query or mssql_import_table_data, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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