Exports a table and its assets to an absolute local ZIP path, enabling backups before major edits.
Export the whole table and assets to an absolute local ZIP path. Useful as a backup before major edits. Streams to disk and refuses to overwrite unless requested.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table_id | No | Omit to use the active connected table. | |
| overwrite | No | ||
| output_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real behavior: it streams to disk rather than buffering in memory, and it refuses to overwrite unless explicitly requested, which directly explains the guard behind the overwrite flag. It does not mention export size limits or what is returned.
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, each carrying distinct information (what, when, safety behavior), with scope stated first. No filler or restatement of the title.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the write destination, overwrite behavior, and streaming semantics. The remaining gap is what the call returns on success (the path? a manifest?) and whether the destination directory must already exist.
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 only 33% — only table_id is documented. The description compensates for output_path by specifying it must be an absolute local ZIP path, and for overwrite by explaining the refusal-to-overwrite default. Adding return-value or path-validation detail would round this out.
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?
States a specific verb (export), the exact resource set (whole table and assets), and the output artifact (absolute local ZIP path). This is cleanly separable from the inverse sibling archives_import without needing to open either schema.
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?
Gives an explicit usage context: 'Useful as a backup before major edits.' That tells the agent when to reach for it, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer per-object export or archives_import for the reverse direction).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.