export_mesh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required privilege level (admin/account-manager), the async nature of the operation, the readiness polling pattern, and a key gotcha: the archive link expires. It doesn't describe whether the export is destructive, rates, or the size of the response, but covers the behavioral essentials well.

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?

Every clause earns its place: purpose, identifier form, permission gate, polling step, download path, and expiry warning. Front-loaded with the action and no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description fills in the async workflow, permissions, and expiry caveat, which the schema and (absent) annotations cannot. Complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it doesn't state how long to poll or what export_status returns.

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% with one undocumented parameter, so the description must compensate. It does, by naming the accepted identifier forms (UUID or name) for mesh_id. One parameter with no other constraints, so this is sufficient.

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?

States a specific verb (Start a full data export) plus the resource (mesh) and the identifier form (by UUID or name). This is clearly distinguishable from export_status and download_attachment in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (start an export) and routes the agent through the full workflow: poll export_status until 'ready', then download from the SPA rather than the API. Names the alternative tool (export_status) and the admin/account-manager precondition.

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