set_build_export_compliance

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

Annotations already disclose destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the mutation verb—it does not say whether the declaration can be changed later, whether it overwrites earlier values, or what the consequence of a wrong declaration is. The one extra sentence is advice, not disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the second sentence is a usage caveat rather than a necessary structural element.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, two sentences are thin. Missing are prerequisites (build must exist), timing relative to review/submission, and any explanation of how buildId is sourced.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the boolean corresponds to 'non-exempt encryption,' which is useful, but says nothing about how buildId is obtained or formatted, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ('Declare') and resource ('whether a build uses non-exempt encryption') that clearly maps to a build export-compliance setting. No sibling tool performs the same function, so the operation is distinguishable, though the description never explicitly names it as the export-compliance tool for a given buildId.

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 sentence 'Use the app's actual export-compliance determination' gives a correctness instruction but does not say when this must be called (e.g., before beta review or submission) or what alternative exists if the determination is unknown. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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