Build Export IPA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by identifying the underlying command (xcodebuild -exportArchive) and the raw return shape ({ok, exit_code, stdout, stderr}). It does not mention file overwrite behavior or whether an existing .ipa would be replaced, but the annotation set covers the main safety and mutability profile.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then usage guidance, then return shape. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 narrowly scoped build step, the description covers purpose, when to use it, prerequisite, broader alternative, and return format. An output schema exists, so it is not required to explain return values exhaustively, and the annotations already communicate the safety profile.

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 all three required parameters have clear schema descriptions. The description does not add syntax, path formats, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run xcodebuild -exportArchive to turn a .xcarchive into an .ipa.' It also names sibling tools build_archive (prerequisite) and testflight_ship (full flow alternative), so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening the 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'after build_archive with an ExportOptions.plist', and an explicit alternative for the broader workflow: 'For the whole flow use testflight_ship.' This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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