pm_contribute_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it generates a .pm-contribution.md file with diffs, descriptions, and testing instructions, but does not clarify what happens if the file already exists, whether it overwrites, or if there are side effects on the git state. It neither confirms nor denies destructive behavior.

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 description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary action and output, and the second sentence provides usage context. There is no superfluous 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?

While the description mentions that the output contains diffs, descriptions, and testing instructions, it does not explain how the parameters map to sections of the output document. Given six optional parameters and no output schema, a more detailed explanation of the generation logic or output structure is needed for completeness.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how the parameters (summary, type, problem, solution, testing, files) are used in the generation process. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool exports current git changes as a PM contribution document. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Export current git changes') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pm_contribute_apply, pm_contribute_list, and pm_contribute_read by focusing on creation/export rather than application or listing.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you fix a bug or add a feature in a client project that should be contributed back to the PM framework.' This provides a clear context for use. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly list alternatives, though siblings imply the distinction.

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