Build an export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses the POST endpoint, 202 response with job_id, 409 conflict when a job is running, default wait behavior, polling, and returned download_path. This is substantial, though it omits details like response error shapes and whether repeated calls create new artifacts.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The HTTP status codes and workflow hint are dense but valuable, though the parameter gap makes the compactness slightly less effective.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not fully cover the contract. It explains the overall flow and wait behavior but leaves parameter semantics unexplained and does not describe the full response structure beyond download_path.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains wait=true and its polling behavior, but gives no meaning for scan_id, format, source, poll_s, or timeout_s, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Build the export zip'), identifies it as a background job, and gives the HTTP endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like export_status and export_manifest, which handle inspection/downloading rather than preparation.

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 implies usage: call this to prepare an export, wait/poll, then fetch the artifact. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, so the guidance is more implicit than explicit.

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