bg3_toolkit_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden well: it discloses that existing editor UUIDs are preserved (non-destructive to them), that the destination can be 'toolkit' or 'repo', and that the operation overwrites open files so the Toolkit must be closed. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a write operation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then semantics, then the critical warning about closing the Toolkit. Dense and information-rich with no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description describes what the dry run reports. It is nearly complete but omits any explanation of the required 'layer' argument, which an agent needs to supply.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains write (dry run vs actual) and dest ('toolkit' or 'repo'), adding real meaning beyond the bare schema, but the required 'layer' parameter is never described, leaving a key input unexplained.

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 ('Generate the Toolkit editor copy') and enumerates the output formats (.stats, .tbl) tied to their source content types. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool, but the operation is distinctive enough that an agent can identify it.

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?

Gives clear operating context: write=False is a dry run listing files/object counts/warnings, write=True performs the write, and it warns to close the Toolkit first. It stops short of stating when a dry run is mandatory before writing, and names no alternative tool.

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