export_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully adds units, coordinate system, and format constraints, but it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting behavior, what happens when destination_path is null, or whether the original file is modified.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The units/coordinate sentence may be partially tangential but is brief. The format exclusion and example earn their place, keeping the definition tight.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and format. However, it omits side effects, optional destination behavior, and any relationship to sibling tools like validate_project, leaving an agent to infer important execution details.

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. The example shows both parameters being used, but it does not explain the meaning of project_path and destination_path beyond their names, nor the default/null behavior of destination_path.

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: 'Finalize and rewrite a .sh3d project.' It also scopes the tool by explicitly excluding OBJ, PNG, SVG, and any other format, making its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context for use: it is for finalizing/rewriting .sh3d projects, and explicitly says when not to use it (for non-.sh3d exports). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools such as create_project or validate_project, missing the full 5-level guidance.

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