spine_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the external dependency (installed editor / SPINE_CLI_PATH), a first-run download that can make the call slow, that `clean` does not modify the project, that `dry_run` only returns the command, and that `settings` overrides other flags. It stops short of saying whether the output folder is overwritten or what happens on partial failure.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then the environment prerequisites, then a compact Args list. Given 0% schema description coverage, the parameter list is not padding — every line supplies information the schema lacks.

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, and the description covers dependencies, timeout risk, dry-run behavior, and flag interactions. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior: overwrite semantics for the output folder, failure handling, and the undocumented required `project` argument.

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 documents seven of the eight parameters with real meaning — notably the 'json'/'binary' values for `format` (absent as an enum in the schema), the `settings` override precedence, and the side-effect guarantee for `clean`. The required `project` parameter is never described in the Args list; it is only inferable from the `-i project` CLI line.

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 and resource ('Export a .spine project through the Spine CLI') and even shows the underlying command form, so the agent knows exactly what happens. No sibling tool performs export, and the CLI framing distinguishes it from inspection/validation siblings like spine_inspect and spine_validate.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions and operational context: the editor must be installed, the executable is auto-detected or read from SPINE_CLI_PATH, and a first-run Trial launcher download can be slow so `timeout` should be raised. It does not name when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., spine_validate before exporting), but the situational guidance is clear.

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