export_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it names the default output directory, the output override, the bridge prerequisite that makes mrpack fail, the zip fallback, and what content is excluded (logs, crash reports, backups). It omits overwrite behavior for existing archives and what the call returns.

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 dense sentences, no filler. Default format and destination are front-loaded, then the format requirement, then the exclusion rule — each sentence contributes new information.

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 and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers the decisions that matter (format choice, destination, exclusions) but leaves the non-format parameters and any return/overwrite semantics unspecified.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains format (both enum values with their behavioral consequences) and output (path override vs default folder), but id, name, and version are left entirely undocumented.

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 and resource (export an instance) plus the two output artifacts (.mrpack or plain zip). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like clone_instance, backup_world, or import_modpack.

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 explicit selection criteria for the two formats: mrpack needs a running bridge-enabled Prism, zip falls back to a file-level archive when no bridge is up. It also states the default format. It does not, however, contrast the tool against sibling export/backup options such as backup_world.

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