export_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is known. 'Writes the requested output file' adds useful context about the mutation's product, but the description omits whether an existing outputPath is overwritten, error/partial-write behavior, and timeout implications—leaving the destructive profile under-explained.

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 short sentences with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than refined conciseness.

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 5-parameter, 3-required destructive write tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does far too little—it leaves four of five parameters and the return/error behavior undocumented, so an agent lacks enough to call it correctly in edge cases.

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 only 20% (only projectPath is documented), so the description must carry the load. It loosely maps 'existing preset' and 'output file' to the preset and outputPath params, but adds no format, requiredness, or meaning for debug and timeoutMs, nor syntax for preset or outputPath.

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 (export) and clarifies it works via an existing preset and installed templates, producing an output file. This distinguishes it from manipulation siblings and from export_mesh_library, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Using an existing preset and installed export templates' hints at prerequisites (a preset must exist, templates must be installed) but frames no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions and offers no alternatives vs export_mesh_library or run_project. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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