pvsyst_export_engineering_delivery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it discloses that a NEW ZIP is created, what is bundled versus left as external dependencies, that no certification or review-status change occurs, and that existing ZIPs block the operation rather than being overwritten. It omits where the ZIP lands and what permission or environment constraints apply.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and every clause carries information about ZIP contents or constraints. The middle sentences are long and list-like, but there is little pure 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?

For a file-producing mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers contents and non-overwrite behavior well but leaves the caller without the returned artifact path or the exact semantics of output_name. An agent would still have to guess part of the call contract.

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 effectively explains manifest_name (one workspace run manifest), comparison_name (bound scenarios plus Chinese comparison report), and dry_run ('Preview writes nothing'), but output_name is never explained (naming rules, overwrite behavior of the new name) and no default or format guidance is given.

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: package a completed engineering run as a new local Results ZIP, and enumerates what the ZIP contains. It distinguishes itself from review-type siblings by stating 'Export does not certify the design or upgrade a review status', but it never names the closest alternatives (pvsyst_project_handoff, pvsyst_review_engineering_brief, pvsyst_export_logs).

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?

Usage is only implied: the input must be a 'completed' run manifest with a valid input/output binding. The 'Preview writes nothing; existing ZIPs stop' clause hints at a preview-then-commit workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the other export/handoff tools.

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