export_record_xml

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions 'Issues an origin cert' (a potential side effect) and 'Read saved_path' (unclear output behavior), but it does not explain whether the operation is destructive, whether it writes files, or what the origin certificate implication is. This is too vague.

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 short (three sentences) and front-loads the main purpose, but 'Read saved_path' is cryptic and does not earn its place without further context. It is concise but not effectively structured, as the last sentence is confusing.

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 5 parameters, no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves too much ambiguity about how to invoke the tool. It does not clarify the roles of the parameters, the 'origin cert' behavior, or what 'saved_path' refers to. A more complete description is needed for practical use.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters described), so the schema carries the meaning. The description does not add parameter-specific detail; in fact, it references 'saved_path' which is not a parameter, potentially confusing the agent. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers most parameter semantics.

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 clear action ('Build deploy XML') on a specific resource ('the LIVE server') and adds a distinguishing constraint ('the only legal source') that separates it from local/alternative tools. However, it does not name sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'the only legal source' gives implicit guidance that this tool should be used for deploy XML from live, not local sources. But it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. 'Read saved_path' is an instructional hint but unrelated to usage context.

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