fastbcp_execute_export

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

Annotations already indicate destructive hint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations: it explains the requirement of confirmation as a safety gate and the failure condition if the FastBCP binary is missing. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers prerequisites, safety gate, and source of command. However, it does not describe return values or success/failure indicators, which would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds valuable context: the command parameter must come from fastbcp_preview_export and should contain actual passwords (not masked), and confirmation must be true. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: executing a FastBCP export command previously built by fastbcp_preview_export. It explicitly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from its sibling tool fastbcp_preview_export by noting that it does not build the command.

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 provides explicit guidance: use after fastbcp_preview_export, requires confirmation=true as a safety gate, and will fail if the FastBCP binary is not installed. It clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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