export_project

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

Annotations are present but all false, providing minimal safety context. The description does not add behavioral details such as whether existing output files are overwritten, whether export presets are validated, or what happens on failure. It therefore adds little beyond the basic purpose.

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, concise sentence that clearly conveys the action and key conditions. No wasted words or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 has moderate complexity with four parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic action but does not mention important context like output path requirements, preset prerequisites beyond 'configured', or behavior regarding existing files. While adequate for a simple export, it leaves some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions 'target platform' and 'configured export preset', which loosely align with the preset parameter, but it does not add detailed semantics or usage patterns beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Export') and resource ('a Godot project') with clear scope ('for a target platform using a configured export preset'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_project or launch_editor, which serve different purposes.

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 description implies use when needing to build an export artifact, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., run_project for testing) or state when not to use. The context is clear enough for a straightforward export operation.

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