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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the operation is asynchronous ('Returns a job ID immediately'), durable, and free of credit cost, which materially affects how an agent sequences calls. It does not, however, cover auth/permission requirements or error/re-queue behavior, so it stops short of fully rich 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the constraint that matters most operationally and financially ('FREE'), followed by the prerequisite, the return behavior, and the polling instruction. 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?

There is no output schema, and the description fills that gap by explaining the immediate return value (job ID) and the status tool to poll, plus the pre-review requirement for all five required params' inputs. Minor gaps remain around what a completed export yields and how long jobs typically take.

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 the parameter burden. It adds meaning for three of the five params (expectedVersion 'its version', startMapId 'selected starting map', playerCharacterId 'player'), but leaves projectId unexplained and gives no hint that expectedVersion is a 64-char hex hash or that engine is an enum, so the compensation is partial.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Queue a durable complete ... project export') plus the three supported engines, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like export_map and get_project_export_command. An agent can identify this as the bulk project-export starter without opening the schema.

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?

It states the required prerequisite ('First review with get_project_export_review and pass its version and selected starting map/player') and the correct follow-up ('poll get_project_export_status until ready'), naming both sibling tools. The 'FREE' / 'No generation credits are spent' note further clarifies when this is the right choice over costlier alternatives.

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