fastbcp_preview_export

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it does NOT execute, shows masked passwords, and auto-suggests parallelism method. It also clarifies it does not test connectivity. No contradictions 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: only a few sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (nested objects, many parameters, sibling tools), the description covers the main points: what it does, what it doesn't do, auto-suggestion, and next steps. It could mention the output format (CLI command string), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a preview tool with good annotations and output schema.

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 40%, so many parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds only minimal parameter context (masked passwords, auto-suggestion of parallelism method). It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, warranting a 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 clearly states the tool builds and previews a FastBCP export command without executing it, distinguishing it from the sibling tool fastbcp_execute_export. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (FastBCP export command), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use (before execution) and what the tool does not do (no connectivity test, no execution). It directs users to pass the command to fastbcp_execute_export after review. While it doesn't list all alternatives, the auto-suggestion hint provides context for when to use it over other tools.

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