export_with_profile

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions running a profile and verifying outputs, but does not explain write behavior, overwrite semantics, permissions, side effects, or what verification entails.

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 filler. It is concise, though the terse phrasing leaves important behavior and parameter details unstated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a five-parameter export operation with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is missing too much about inputs, overwrite behavior, and execution scope.

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 schema has five parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only names the profile concept. It provides no meaning for output_directory, overwrite, size_log2, or texture_sets.

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 names a specific action and resource: running an export profile and verifying outputs. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as export_textures, plan_profile_export, or list_export_profiles, so an agent cannot fully infer when this is the right tool.

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 implied constraint is that execution happens inside SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of plan_profile_export, export_textures, or list_export_profiles.

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