request_export

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the write-flag gate and, importantly, that the mutation is not live-validated or live-tested — genuinely useful risk context an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone. It repeats 'mutating' but does not contradict destructiveHint=false, since requesting an export is a non-destructive write.

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?

Terse, front-loaded, and scannable, with the endpoint and write gate stated first. The only waste is near-duplication between 'Not live-validated' and 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested.'

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 annotations covering safety hints and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies what is missing: the endpoint, write gate, schema lookup path, and validation status. The uncovered 'query' and 'confirm_destructive' parameters are the only notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it usefully rules out path parameters and tells the agent the payload shape comes from get_schema('TriggerExportRequestProto'). However, 'query' and 'confirm_destructive' — the latter non-obvious for an untested mutation — are never explained.

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?

Names the operation and pins it to a concrete endpoint (POST /v1/user/export), so an agent knows this triggers a user-data export rather than any of the flight/airport siblings. What the export actually contains or produces is left implicit from the path, so it falls short of full specificity.

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 write-gate requirement (FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true) and the pointer to get_schema for the payload give practical preconditions. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over related tools or what the after-effects are (async job? email? poll with wait_for_sync?), so usage is only implied.

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