Export documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that partial exports are permitted and that missing sections are marked, but it never says whether existing files in the target directory are overwritten or preserved — a critical unknown for a write operation — nor does it mention permissions or any return confirmation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the concrete artifact list and followed by the behavioral caveat. The dense file enumeration is justified because it tells the agent exactly what lands on disk. No filler wording.

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?

For a multi-artifact write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is produced and the partial-export rule but omits overwrite semantics, prerequisites relative to sibling generation tools, and any success/failure signal. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for predicting side effects.

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 only 50%: outDir is documented in the schema, while projectId has no description anywhere. The description restates the default directory already present in the schema but adds no meaning for projectId (e.g., whether it scopes the source design or the output folder), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Write') and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (hld.md, lld.md, README.md, requirements.json, viewer.html, .mmd diagrams) plus the default location. That makes the action concrete and distinct from generation-oriented siblings like archforge_generate_design. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling precedes it, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives; the agent must infer that this is the post-generation step that persists artifacts to disk. The 'partial exports are allowed' clause hints at a valid condition for calling, but preconditions (e.g., whether a design must exist first) are never stated.

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