export

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema — that API keys are never included — which is a security-relevant trait. However, it omits whether files are written to disk and where, whether existing exports are overwritten, and what permissions or setup are needed.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the core purpose plus the security guarantee are front-loaded. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

A four-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain the return artifact and side effects, and this one does not. An agent cannot tell whether it gets file paths, a bundle, or a job handle, nor where the export lands.

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, and it does not. It only mentions the engine names, which merely restates the enum already in the schema, and says nothing about 'formats', 'project', or 'asset_ids' (scope of the export).

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (engine-ready folders and metadata) and enumerates the three target engines, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like writeback_apply or run_recipe, though it never explicitly says so.

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 versus writeback_apply, writeback_preview, create_blueprint_folder, or the other write-side siblings. No preconditions (e.g., whether assets must be scanned or requirements fulfilled first) and no exclusions are given.

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