project_export

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

Annotations already establish it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write operation. The description adds that output goes to the configured local export directory, reinforcing the local scope, but omits whether existing files are overwritten, how files are named, or what the call returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and destination lead the statement. It is efficient, if slightly sparse given the tool's complexity.

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 write tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, an agent still cannot tell what files are produced, whether prior exports are overwritten, or what a backup format implies. Key operational context 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It lists the format values, but those merely restate the schema enum, and it says nothing about projectId's semantics or constraints (min/max length, required).

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 (Write) plus the resource formats and the destination directory, so the operation is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like project_transfer, project_copy and project_restore, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over the many closely related siblings (project_transfer, project_copy, project_dossier), nor any prerequisites such as configured export directory requirements. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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