plc_export_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature and safety profile are given structurally. The description adds genuine value with the non-overwrite guarantee, which is not derivable from annotations, but leaves unexplained what an 'unverified SMC2 candidate' is, whether the write is atomic, and what happens if the destination already exists or the operation fails.

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 padding, front-loading the verb and the target of the write, then immediately stating the hard constraint. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and only two required parameters keep the surface small. Still, the 0% schema coverage means the description should say more about project_id and destination format, and the undefined term 'unverified SMC2 candidate' is a real gap for an agent that must decide whether this tool fits.

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 carry the burden; it does clarify that 'destination' must be a new, non-existing path, which is meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema. It says nothing about 'project_id', though the export framing implies it selects which project is written out.

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 names a specific verb (write) and resource (an SMC2 candidate to a new path), which tells an agent this is an export/copy operation rather than an in-place save. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling plc_ide_export_active, so the reader must infer the difference from the 'new path' wording.

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 clause 'never overwrite the original or another file' functions as a usage constraint and implicitly signals this is for producing a copy rather than persisting changes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as plc_ide_export_active, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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