export_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is an immutable snapshot and includes a CRS-evidence caution, but it does not explain permissions, overwrite behavior, run_dir effects, or other mutation semantics beyond immutability.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is efficient, though it also leaves important gaps that are better captured under contextual completeness.

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 tool creates a persistent artifact and requires source and run_dir, but the description does not explain those required inputs or when the operation is appropriate. Output schema presence reduces the need to describe return values, but the mutation and parameter semantics remain substantially incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds valuable nuance for source_crs but leaves the required source and run_dir parameters completely unexplained in both schema and 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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Create a new immutable CAD snapshot." That is clear enough to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as inspect_source, run_conversion, or package_qgis_delivery.

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 only guidance is a parameter-level caution: "omit CRS unless authoritative evidence exists." It does not state when to use export_source versus inspect_source, run_conversion, or other sibling tools, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions for invoking it.

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