export_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's valuable addition is 'non-secret', which tells the agent no credentials are exposed. However, it doesn't clarify whether 'export' returns data in the response or produces an artifact, nor whether authentication is required.

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?

A single tight sentence with the positive purpose front-loaded and the negative scope trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, this is close to sufficient, but the unspecified profileId and the unresolved question of what the export actually produces leave a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 single parameter profileId has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about what a profile ID is or where to obtain one. With only one parameter the burden is small, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's string constraint.

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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (non-secret connection information) plus the intent (future client pairing). It is distinguishable from the sibling inspect_connection, but it never names the sibling, leaving the export-vs-inspect distinction to be inferred.

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?

Gives a clear positive context ('for future client pairing') and an explicit exclusion ('does not configure the Apple app'), which steers the agent away from a plausible misuse. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the excluded case.

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