export

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose important side effects: it writes a file into a data pack and creates `pack.mcmeta` if none exists. However, it does not state overwrite behavior, required permissions, or error conditions for a mutation tool.

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 target path is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences add relevant file-creation and in-game-use details. It is somewhat long, but each clause contributes useful operational context.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be described, and the core export destination and pack behavior are covered. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter descriptions, the missing explanation of the `description` parameter and overwrite semantics leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description ties `namespace`, `design`, and `datapack` together through the path template and explains the special `.litematic` path case. It leaves the `description` parameter entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the specific verb and resource: it writes the design as a `.litematic` file at a concrete path template. It is easy to distinguish from construction siblings like `box` or `set_block`, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives useful post-export context — after `/reload` the blueprint is available via the Blueprint item and bots can build it — but it does not explicitly say when to choose `export` over adjacent tools such as `preview` or `open_schematic`. Usage is strongly implied rather than stated with exclusions.

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