export_blueprint_budget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it writes a file to a specific write sandbox, it defines the default output path pattern, and it explains that overwrite=True is what replaces an existing file (clarifying the destructive hint's scope).

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 first sentence states the action and artifact up front, then Args/Returns sections are cleanly partitioned with no filler. Length is justified by the number of documented parameters, and every sentence earns its place.

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 file-export tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the definition covers format options, path handling, overwrite semantics, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 0% and the schema has no enums, so the description carries the full burden. It documents every one of the 7 parameters, including value domains (csv/xlsx, 11 ISO currency codes, h/d/w/m/y, effective vs stated) and defaults, adding meaning the bare string-typed schema cannot convey.

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) plus resource (a blueprint's cost estimate/budget) and the output artifact (CSV or XLSX on disk). It also differentiates itself from the closest sibling by naming export_blueprint_image and the shared sandbox, so an agent can separate the two export tools without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('export a budget') and the sibling reference gives context about the write sandbox, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any routing hint like 'use export_blueprint_image for diagrams instead'. Minimum viable.

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