export_data_encryption_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the key is exported as an encrypted package and requires a passphrase, which adds useful context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur (if any), or what the output format is, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is zero waste; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key detail (passphrase protection).

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it explains what is exported and how it is secured. The only gap is that it does not explicitly describe the return value or delivery mechanism (e.g., whether the package is returned in the response or written to a file), but the phrase 'export as an encrypted key package' gives a strong hint.

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 100%, and the param description already fully explains that the passphrase is used to encrypt the exported key package. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'Arc data encryption key', and specifies the output as an 'encrypted key package' secured with a passphrase. This differentiates it from sibling tools like import_data_encryption_key (opposite) and export_settings (different resource).

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 implies usage for safe transport/backup of the encryption key, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. For example, it does not mention using import_data_encryption_key for restoring the key, even though that sibling exists. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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