ms_export_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload ('Returns the full graph data') and the side option that a template conversion also occurs, but it never states that this is a non-mutating read, nor mentions permissions, cost, or whether the asset is left untouched — gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 return payload, then the optional flag, then a clean Args block. Slightly redundant ('Export a complete... graph' followed by 'Returns the full graph data'), but every segment is short and 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still names what is exported and documents both parameters, including the optional template conversion path. Complete enough to call correctly, missing only the guidance about when to pick this tool.

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, and it does: asset_path is given with a concrete path format example (/Game/Audio/MySound) and convert_to_template is explained as converting to the reusable template format. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 ('Export a complete MetaSounds graph from UE5') and even enumerates the contents (nodes, pin types, defaults, variables, interfaces), which lets the agent distinguish it from the import-direction sibling ms_graph_from_template. No sibling is named explicitly and no boundary against ms_graph_to_commands/ms_list_nodes is drawn, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies a read/export use case but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as ms_graph_to_commands, ms_list_nodes, or ms_graph_from_template. The only conditional offered ('Optionally converts to our reusable template format') describes a flag, not a selection criterion.

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