export_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a side effect (running 'godot --export-release') but says nothing about whether export writes artifacts, where they go, what validation failures look like, or what permissions/environment are required for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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 that states the action first and the optional mode second, with no filler. Slightly redundant with the schema's doExport description, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a validation result contains, what constitutes an invalid preset, and what an actual export produces or leaves behind. None of that is present for a tool that can trigger a build-like operation.

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 100% and all three parameters (preset, doExport, projectPath) are documented inline with defaults. The description only restates doExport=true, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (validate) and resource (export_presets.cfg) plus the optional export mode, so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling (e.g. export_mesh_library), but among the listed tools it is the only validation entry point.

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 parenthetical '(doExport=true)' implies the condition for triggering a real export versus validation-only, which gives some usage context. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no stated prerequisites (Godot CLI availability, preset existence), and no alternatives named.

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