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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), it discloses that the operation is durable/asynchronous, requires expectedRevision concurrency control, surfaces slug conflicts as errors, and enforces editor scoping. It also clarifies that data is read via the maintained extractor rather than from caller input, which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and inputs, then workflow, then constraints — no filler sentences. Some clauses are dense and run long (the mediaParams/textParams sentence), but every sentence carries operational information.

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 nested-body mutation with an output schema, the description covers the async job lifecycle, the downstream retrieval step, conflict behavior, and authorization scoping. An agent can complete the full export flow without consulting anything else except the schema for field shapes.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description still adds real meaning: expectedRevision is framed as a revision guard, mediaParams/textParams are "optional bounded ... selectors for existing clip/leaf sites" (max 128), and slug conflicts are called out. The role enum (project-template vs component-package) and the commandId retry parameter are left to the schema, so it does not fully cover the surface.

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?

"Export an exact SAVED project snapshot as a portable template package" states a specific verb and resource plus the source of truth (saved composition, not caller-supplied documents). It is clearly separable from siblings such as import_template_package, create_template_package_upload, and get_template_package_download.

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 gives the full call chain: submit, poll get_template_job until ready, then pass receiptId to get_template_package_download. It also states exclusions ("Does not render or create a new project") and preconditions (existing slug conflicts; a project-bound editor may export only its bound project).

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