export_project_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: waiting for readiness, writing to a local path, and what is never exported. However, it does not mention idempotency, polling, timeouts, or return value beyond the file 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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the primary action and output format; the second adds two important behavioral notes (waiting/writing and exclusions). Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, exclusions, and key behaviors (wait/write), but lacks information about the return value or behavior when output_path is not set. Given 9 parameters and no output schema, a bit more detail on the result would improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the auth parameter (credentials never exported) and wait/output_path relationship, but does not elaborate on all 9 parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb 'export' and the resource 'Run402 Core runtime slice of a Cloud project' as a portable .r402ar archive, and explicitly lists what is never exported, distinguishing it from siblings like import_project_archive, inspect_project_archive, and verify_project_archive.

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?

The description indicates when to use this tool (to create a portable archive of runtime configuration) and hints at behavior like waiting and writing to a local path, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives among the many sibling archive-related tools.

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