Export a GDevelop web project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful context that the export produces a persistent build and writes to a caller-selected directory, but it does not disclose what destruction might occur (e.g., overwriting existing files). This is acceptable but not very rich.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given three parameters, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain prerequisites, what happens to existing files, what sceneName controls, or how export relates to the project lifecycle.

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 compensate. It clarifies that outputDirectory is the local destination, but projectId and especially sceneName are left to inference. sceneName is not mentioned at all, leaving its role ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and clearly identifies the resource ('persistent GDJS web build') and destination ('caller-selected local directory'). The word 'persistent' helps distinguish this from the sibling tool 'build_preview', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_preview or save_project. The description simply states what it does without specifying prerequisites (e.g., a prior build) or exclusions.

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