export_propertysource

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. However, the description adds valuable context: the output format is a REST API definition suitable for import into create or update tools. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying how the output is intended to be used, which is not obvious from annotations alone.

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 one sentence and directly states the purpose and use case. It front-loads the action and resource, then explains the output's value. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It explains the output's format and how to use it, which is key context. The only minor gap is not mentioning that the output is likely JSON or similar, but the phrase 'REST API format' implies that.

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%, with propertysource_id already described as 'PropertySource ID'. The description does not add any further detail about the parameter. Therefore, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it also doesn't need to, given full coverage. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool exports a PropertySource definition in REST API format. It also specifies that the output can be used with create_propertysource or update_propertysource, which distinguishes it from other export tools and shows its purpose.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to export a PropertySource definition for reuse with create or update. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of 'export' vs 'create/update' is clear enough. The sibling list includes get_propertysource and get_propertysources, but the description doesn't distinguish from these; however, the purpose is clear.

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