export_asset

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it refuses to overwrite unless overwrite=true and instructs the agent to ask the user first. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent avoid unintended data loss.

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 tight sentences: the first states the core operation, and the second front-loads the most important safety constraint. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields, making it highly efficient.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what the tool copies, where it copies to, and the overwrite guardrail with user-consent guidance. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the overwrite behavior and the user-consent requirement, but it does not substantially deepen meaning for revision_id or dest_path 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 uses a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('a revision's bytes') and states the destination context ('out of the workspace to a destination path'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_asset, which would perform the reverse operation.

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 purpose makes the tool's usage context clear, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The overwrite caveat is behavioral guidance rather than selection guidance, so usage direction is mostly implied.

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