host_plugin_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a file-writing mutation. It says a new file is written, but does not disclose overwrite behavior if the destination exists, required permissions, file format, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded and no wasted language. It is appropriately sized, though it could use a few more words to cover behavioral and parameter gaps.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough: it leaves overwrite semantics, permissions, and destination format unspecified.

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% and the single parameter is only named 'destination'. The description implies it is a file path by saying 'to a new file', but does not clarify expected format, whether directories are allowed, or what happens with existing files.

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 and resource: writing the standalone official-host plugin to a new file for local installation. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby export tools such as host_project_export or profile_export.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling export tools, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use. The phrase 'for local installation' hints at context but does not tell the agent when this is the right choice.

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