vault_export_credential

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical traits: the target is a protected local file, the secret is deliberately excluded from the result, and an agent with file access can read it afterwards. Missing are overwrite behavior (does filename clobber an existing file?), permission/auth requirements, and what 'protected' concretely means, which matters for a secret-writing operation.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (the secret never appears in the result) is placed early. The format detail is appended last where it belongs.

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?

It covers the return shape and one parameter for a tool with no output schema and no annotations, which is a solid start. But for a five-parameter, security-sensitive export operation, the unexplained destination/filename semantics and absent overwrite or auth notes leave real gaps.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains only the format enum ('format=json writes {service, account, secret}'), leaving connection_id, operation, filename, and especially destination undocumented — the filename vs destination relationship is entirely ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: write a stored credential to a protected local file, returning only the path. It implicitly separates itself from read-only siblings like vault_list and vault_find by emphasizing that the secret is not returned inline, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (an agent that needs the secret on disk rather than in the response), and the login-style json case is flagged for format=json. However, it never states when to prefer vault_list/vault_find over this export, nor any prerequisite or exclusion, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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