bundle_export

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides useful scoping detail (included items and exclusions) and a prerequisite (successful render), but does not disclose side effects, whether it creates or overwrites a file, permissions needed, or failure 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 compact, front-loaded with the core action and content, and follows with concise exclusions. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description establishes what is collected and the precondition but omits output format, return behavior, and side-effect visibility. It is usable but leaves several operational questions unanswered.

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 parameter meaning must come from the description. The phrases 'current project' and 'successful current-revision render' loosely map to project_id and job_id, but the description never explicitly explains the role of each required parameter or their relationship.

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 uses a specific verb ('Collect') and identifies the resources involved: current project, hashed assets, and frozen audio from a render. It also states exclusions (jobs, temp, existing ZIPs), making the tool's boundary clearer. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the render-centric scope differentiates it from generic export/import tools.

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?

It clearly states the precondition: the tool is used after a successful current-revision render. The exclusions also communicate what will and will not be included. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as export_project or bundle_import.

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