project_export_download

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait – the download is triggered in the browser rather than written server-side – but says nothing about side effects on project state, permissions, or whether the design must be saved first.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, target, and output options; no filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

Four parameters with sensible defaults, no output schema and no nested objects, so the description is the only guide. It covers the core intent but leaves the interaction between format and the other parameters, plus any project-state preconditions, unaddressed.

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 50%: quality and filename are documented in the schema, while scale and format are bare enums. The description enumerates the formats but does not explain that quality applies only to JPEG, what scale means, or whether filename should omit the extension as the schema states.

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?

Specific verb (Triggers...download) plus resource (current design) and enumerated output formats, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling studio_export_file, which plausibly overlaps, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to prefer this over studio_export_file or pdf_export_catalog, no prerequisites, no note that it requires an open project in a browser context. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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