export_standard_pack

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing automated cleanup, nested archive extraction, modlist generation, optional splitting, and a detailed operation report. However, it does not explicitly warn that cleanup or unwrapping can delete files, nor does it clarify whether the source pack is modified or how existing output is handled.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the main action and then lists the key optional behaviors. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized.

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 nine parameters but full schema descriptions, the agent has enough structured detail to call the tool correctly. The description also states that a detailed operation report is returned, although it could more explicitly cover destructive side effects and preconditions.

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 already has structured documentation. The description summarizes optional behaviors such as volume splitting and modlist generation but adds no syntax, default, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: exporting a standardized modpack. It also names the core operations (cleanup, nested archive extraction, modlist generation, optional volume splitting), which clearly distinguishes it from create_pack and the read-only sibling tools.

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 export purpose is inferable from the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over create_pack or other siblings, nor any stated preconditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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