export_zprj

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states 'save', implying a write operation, but does not clarify if it is destructive (overwrites existing files), whether it requires specific permissions, or any limits (e.g., file size, path restrictions). The output schema exists but is not described.

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 description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is too brief. Conciseness is good, but the lack of important details makes it under-specified. A 3 is appropriate because it is concise but not sufficiently informative.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter and no annotations, the description should provide more context about behavior and output. It does not mention return values (despite having an output schema), error conditions, or file handling details. The description is incomplete for a file export operation.

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 required parameter 'path' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain whether the path should include the filename, whether it must be absolute, or if the extension is added automatically. The parameter semantics are 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?

The description clearly states the action (save/export) and the resource (current scene to .zprj file). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'import_project' and 'render_image' which have different purposes. However, it could be more specific about whether it overwrites files or requires a full path including filename.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having an active scene, or when not to use it (e.g., if export is unsupported in the current state). Siblings like 'simulate' or 'render_image' are not differentiated in terms of use cases.

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