abx_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — the result is a zip bundle, which matters since no output schema exists — but says nothing about permissions, whether the export is synchronous, or size limits.

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 operative sentence is short and front-loaded, but the first line merely restates the name and the third line is a raw POST path that duplicates the annotation title, so roughly a third of the text is 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?

With one required body parameter at full schema coverage, annotations present, and no output schema, the description covers the core contract and the return format. It still leaves gaps an agent would want — whether the response is a direct download versus a job handle, and what happens when an action identity is invalid.

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 100% and the nested body/actions identity object is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The phrase "the specified actions" mirrors the actions array but adds no semantics about id/orgId/projectId or how multiple identities are handled.

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 and resource ("Exports the specified actions") and adds the output form ("as a zip bundle"), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like abx_import_actions or abx_get_all_actions. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent can infer this is the tool for pulling an action bundle out of the system. There is no statement of prerequisites, when to prefer this over listing actions, or any exclusion, and the raw endpoint line adds nothing to selection.

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