Export issues to BCF

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return shape ({path, exported, issues, fileExists}), which also signals the overwrite/existing-file concern; it stops short of stating permission requirements or error semantics.

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, front-loaded with the action and format, followed by the return shape. No repetition or filler; every clause carries information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields, and the format/interop context is supplied. Combined with 100% schema coverage of the six parameters, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter (path, issues, overwrite, createFolders, useExternalId, alignBySurveyPoint) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (exports issues) and pins the artifact format (.bcfzip, BCF 2.1) plus the consuming tools (Solibri, Revit, BIMcollab). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling import_bcf and other export_* tools without opening a schema.

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 description implies the use case (handing issues to other BIM tools) but never states when to choose this versus import_bcf or gives exclusions/prerequisites. Usage is inferable from context, which is the minimum viable level.

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