trmnl_project_export

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a useful credential-handling warning and states the output is a ZIP archive, but it does not explain side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens to the exported archive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a critical constraint. There is no wasted text.

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 one-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and one important constraint. It still leaves gaps around return behavior, where the ZIP goes, and the exact meaning of the required id parameter.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description does not explain what 'id' identifies or how it maps to a project. The meaning of the parameter is only implied by the word 'project' in the description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Export a validated project to a ZIP archive for TRMNL/trmnlp.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like trmnl_project_deploy or trmnl_download_plugin_setting_archive, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'validated project' implies a precondition, but the description does not say when to choose export over deploy, preview, or save. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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