export_geolibre_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key behavior: optional output_json_path means it can write a file or return JSON, and it lists basemap choices and return shape. However, it does not mention side effects such as file overwriting, required credentials, or whether any external state 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 neatly structured: one-sentence purpose, bullet-style Args, and one-sentence Returns. Every line adds information and there is no filler.

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?

Given five parameters and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, all parameter semantics, and return behavior, which is largely sufficient. It falls short only on edge behaviors like overwrite semantics and permission requirements, and it does not route the agent away from export_interactive_map.

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%, but the Args section documents all five parameters with meaningful detail: bbox order `[min_lon, min_lat, max_lon, max_lat]`, layers as JSON string or GeoJSON references, an example output path, and enumerated basemap themes. This fully compensates for the empty schema coverage.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ('Export') and a specific resource ('native GeoLibre project configuration file'), then names the exact target applications (GeoLibre Desktop Tauri / Web). The GeoLibre-specific resource and target apps distinguish it from the sibling export_interactive_map, so an agent can select it without schema inspection.

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 gives an explicit use context: one-click importing of eo-mcp analysis layers into GeoLibre, and it defines the output target. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear but not a full routing guide.

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