export_fab_package_async

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions async execution and polling but does not explain behavior like error handling, cancellation, or effects on the board. Could be more detailed for a background task.

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 sentences, highly efficient. The first sentence states the action and follow-up, the second provides the use case. No wasted words.

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 2-param async tool without output schema, the description covers the async nature and polling but misses parameter explanations and return value details. Adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (`output` and `project`), but the description provides no explanation for them. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding meaning beyond type/required info.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: starting an async fab-package export. It differentiates from its sibling `export_fab_package` by noting that it runs in the background and should be used for large boards to avoid timeouts.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('for large boards that may exceed the request timeout') and how to use it ('poll it with get_task_status'). This provides clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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