export_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states the high-level export action without disclosing side effects (e.g., file creation, code signing requirements, potential overwrites) or any error/return behavior.

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?

Single sentence that is immediately understandable and contains no filler. The parenthetical list of distribution methods is useful context without being verbose.

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 an operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention what the output looks like (IPA location), prerequisites (e.g., valid archive, signing), or failure modes. The schema covers parameter details but not overall behavior.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 8 parameters, including defaults and behaviors for optional ones (e.g., teamId, signingCertificate). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the method list, which duplicates the enum.

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 action (export), the resource (Xcode archive), and the purpose (for distribution with four methods). It distinguishes from siblings like archive_project (which creates archives) by focusing on the export step.

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 distribution scenarios (App Store, Ad Hoc, etc.) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like validate_app or archive_project. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are given.

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