export_map

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

Annotation Contradiction: the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description explicitly says the tool 'Does not overwrite files or mark the editor saved' and writes to a NEW file. A pure new-file export is not a destructive operation, so the description directly contradicts the structured destructive hint rather than clarifying it.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and destination, then adds the most important side-effect caveats. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With three required parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a destructiveHint that conflicts with the description, an agent cannot confidently construct a valid invocation. The description clarifies output location and non-overwrite behavior but omits parameter details, failure behavior on name collision, and result/return expectations.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters such as sessionId, expectedRevision, and name. It provides only weak implicit hints: 'name' likely maps to the new file name and 'exact live revision' vaguely suggests expectedRevision, but sessionId and revision semantics are never explicitly explained.

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 ('Export'), a concrete resource ('a map ZIP of the exact live revision'), and an explicit destination ('a NEW file under outputs/mcp-exports'). It also clarifies a key distinguishing behavior: it does not overwrite files and does not mark the editor saved, which helps separate it from siblings like save_copy or capture_view.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_copy, capture_view, or inspect_map. No exclusions or explicit conditions are provided, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and generic export wording.

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