Export bounded private native resources

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

Annotations declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: exclusive 0600 file creation, redaction of credentials and signed URLs, native page counters, and explicit non-guarantees (no link following, no file downloads, no atomic backup). Some phrases like 'confirmed' and 'native page counters' remain cryptic, but the behavioral disclosure is substantial.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with the core action first and no filler. It is efficient, though the heavy jargon makes some clauses harder to parse than necessary.

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 8-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: destination (new file), safety (redaction, exclusive 0600), and limits (no atomicity, no link following). Parameter-level detail is thin, but the operative contract is communicated.

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 63%, so the schema documents most fields. The description only loosely maps to parameters ('paginated', 'native page counters' for max_pages/start_offset, 'Confirmed' for confirm) and adds nothing for account, arguments, or output_file. Adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource: a 'paginated JSON:API export' writing to a new file, which clearly separates it from the many get_/list_ siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative export or contrasting with the list_ tools an agent might otherwise reach for.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Confirmed' and the schema's confirm note ('set true only when the user asked for exactly this action'), but the description itself gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer the selection condition from surrounding text.

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