ioc_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-destructive copy of the source, but does not say whether an existing file at the destination is overwritten, whether the project must be open or saved first, or what errors occur on an invalid path.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the operation is front-loaded and the clarifying parenthetical is short and useful.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but the description omits overwrite behavior and any return information (e.g., whether the destination path is echoed). These are the details an agent would want before invoking a file-writing operation.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the qualifier 'arbitrary' for path and the notion that the destination is a .ioc file, which is already implied by 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?

States a specific verb and resource: copying the project .ioc file to a path, plus the intent ('shareable artifact'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as ioc_import, ioc_get, and project_export_script, though it does not name them.

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 parenthetical 'shareable artifact' implies the use case (producing a file to hand off), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against ioc_get, project_save_as, or project_export_script. The agent must infer the routing.

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