export_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers the most important trait for an export tool: the precise scope of the output (what is and isn't included). The boundary between portable JSON and full bundles (binaries/libraries) is explicitly drawn, which prevents the agent from assuming the export is a complete project backup. It could add detail on the delivery mechanism or side effects, but the core behavioral characteristic is transparent.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded first, and the clarifying exclusion is delivered second. Every clause earns its place — the description states the action, the output format, the included contents, and the excluded contents in under 25 words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: action, output format, contents, and exclusions. The only notable gap is how the export is delivered (returned inline as JSON vs. written to a path), which is not stated. Overall it is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 should compensate, but it adds nothing about project_id beyond the schema's pattern constraint. That said, the single parameter is largely self-explanatory — 'project_id' clearly refers to the project to export, and the regex pattern fully documents its format. The compensation gap is minor because the parameter name and schema together convey sufficient meaning; a richer description would add little value here.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Export a portable project JSON') and goes further to enumerate exactly what's included (concrete notes and saved plugin states) and excluded (plugin binaries, sample libraries). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bundle_export (which would bundle binaries/libraries) and export_midi/export_notation_midi (which export MIDI data, not project JSON). An agent can immediately tell what this tool produces and how it differs from its neighbors.

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 'Does not bundle plugin binaries or sample libraries' sentence conveys the intended use case: this is the tool for a portable, JSON-based project exchange, not for a full asset bundle. This is implicit guidance that helps an agent choose between export_project and bundle_export, though it stops short of explicitly naming the alternative or stating when NOT to use this tool. The context is clear, but exclusions are implied rather than explicit.

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