export_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the active project path may change, that files/scene may be written, that the resulting state must be verified, and that a timed-out operation is UNKNOWN. This is unusually transparent for a mutating 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, requirement, side effects, and timeout handling. Warnings are front-loaded around the core operation, with no 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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers prerequisites, side effects, and failure-mode behavior well. The gap is the unexplained 'API bool' and lack of any statement about return values or how success is observed beyond verification.

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?

The single parameter path is described as 'explicit path' and 'new absolute output path', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Path' label. However, the description references an 'API bool' for thumbnail creation that is not represented in the input schema, which could confuse invocation.

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: 'Save ZPRJ with explicit path'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_project, export_obj, and export_fbx. The additional mention of thumbnail creation adds nuance without obscuring the core purpose.

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?

Provides clear context: requires a new absolute output path, warns to verify resulting state, and instructs to call reconcile_operation before retrying after a timeout. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the conditions for correct use are clear enough for an agent.

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