migrate_export_mail_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Export' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not state whether it modifies anything, what the response contains, whether the bundle is returned directly or stored, or what permissions are needed. The schema's include_secrets note is not part of the description, leaving key behavioral traits to inference.

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 that conveys the action, the resource, the included components, and the output format without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description defines the core purpose and scope well, but with no output schema and no annotations, it omits the return value/format, side effects, and prerequisites or migration workflow context. An agent could select this tool correctly but would not know what to expect after invoking it.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds general context about bundle contents but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and clearly defines the resource ('mail domain') and scope ('all mailboxes, aliases, forwards, and catchall') as well as the output ('migration bundle'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like migrate_import_mail_domain and migrate_export_dns_zone without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'as a migration bundle' implies the tool is meant for migration workflows, and the sibling set includes migrate_import_mail_domain, suggesting an export/import pairing. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as mail_domain_get or migrate_export_web_domain, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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