export_solution

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

With annotations only declaring it is not read-only and not idempotent, the description carries the real behavioral load: writes an exclusive new local .zip, never returns base64, never overwrites files, does not publish, and on failure the reserved path may be empty or partial with no automatic replay. That is exactly the failure-mode and side-effect detail an agent needs before invoking a write.

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 default and safety constraints are front-loaded ('Preview by default') and every clause carries information, with no filler. It is telegraphic to the point that some sentences ('Native ExportSolution from a visible ordinary unmanaged source') require domain knowledge to parse.

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 no-output-schema, multi-mode write tool the description covers workflow, file-writing guarantees, publish behavior, and failure recovery, which is substantial. The unexplained planHash reference and the undocumented expectedHash parameter are the remaining holes.

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 44% and the description adds meaning for two of the nine parameters: managed output must be chosen explicitly and execution requires a current preview planHash. However, planHash is referenced but does not exist in the schema (additionalProperties: false), and expectedHash — a 64-hex verification parameter — is never explained, leaving a real 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 states a specific verb and resource — exporting a solution via Native ExportSolution into a local .zip — and distinguishes the preview vs. managed output modes. It does not name the closest siblings (inspect_solution_package, import_solution_async) so the boundary is inferred rather than stated, and the phrasing is compressed to the point of being cryptic in places.

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?

'Preview by default' plus 'Execute with planHash' communicates the two-phase preview-then-execute workflow, and 'choose managed output explicitly' tells the agent unmanaged is the default. No exclusion against alternative inspection/export siblings is given, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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