export_asset_as_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the description carries a lighter burden. It still adds real behavior: the inline text is capped with a truncated flag, a whole-text MD5 content hash is returned for change detection, and the full dump is written to Saved/Exports/Text. That explains why the write/not-readOnly annotation is true, without contradicting it.

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 canonical-dump claim and the two formats, with no filler sentences. It is dense and runs as a single long paragraph, but every clause (formats, hash, save path, diff-tool positioning, return shape) earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the returned fields (asset_path, object_path, asset_class, format, text, text_length, truncated, content_hash, export_file_path, written, message). Combined with format semantics and the file-write behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the enum listing: 'json' is a deterministic sorted UPROPERTY dump (with a UDataTable using its native writer) and 't3d' is the engine's UExporter text. write_file's default-true behavior is also restated in the description's write path.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Produce a CANONICAL, STABLE text dump of ANY asset (Blueprint, DataTable, Material, DataAsset...)'. It also positions itself against the diff siblings by calling itself 'the primitive under the diff tools', so an agent can tell it apart from diff_blueprints/diff_data_tables.

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?

Gives a clear context of use ('for external diff / VCS snapshot / review') and notes it is the primitive the diff tools are built on. It stops short of explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. vs export_asset_data or export_data_table_as_json), so a 4.

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