superset_database_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: passwords are NOT exported for security reasons. It also clearly specifies the return format as JSON containing base64-encoded ZIP data and size_bytes. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, whether the operation has side effects (e.g., modifies any state), or error behavior for invalid database_ids. Still, the security caveat and return structure add significant transparency.

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 tightly structured: a purpose statement, an important security note, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose and critical caveat, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly. The formatting is consistent 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?

For a simple one-parameter export tool, the description is quite complete. It specifies the parameter format, the return envelope, and a key security limitation. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in full, though the description already does. Missing elements like error handling or what the ZIP contains besides connection configs are not critical for basic invocation but could be considered gaps. Overall, it is well above minimal viability.

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 input schema provides only a string parameter 'database_ids' with no description (schema description coverage is 0%). The description compensates fully by explaining that the parameter takes comma-selected connection IDs and giving an example ('1,2'). This clarifies both the expected format and the meaning of the value, which is essential since the schema alone is ambiguous. For a single parameter, this is high-value semantic addition.

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 begins with 'Export database connection configurations as a ZIP file', which clearly identifies the action (export), the resource (database connection configurations), and the output (ZIP). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools for dashboards, charts, and datasets, as well as from database read operations like superset_database_list and superset_database_get. The safety note about passwords further clarifies what the tool produces.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name any sibling tools as alternatives or state conditions like 'use when you need to back up connections' or 'not for single connection details'. The only hint is the purpose, but that is implied by the action, not a usage guideline. This leaves the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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