export_project

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

The description goes beyond annotations (none provided) by disclosing that this is a long-running operation, the default timeout of 3600s, and the configurable environment variable for timeout. This is important behavioral context that the schema alone doesn't provide. It doesn't mention potential side effects or whether it blocks, but the timeout warning is valuable.

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 tight and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, then the long-running warning, then an Args list. Every sentence adds useful information with no fluff.

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, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameters with defaults, and a critical behavioral warning about long runtime. An output schema exists, so return values don't need extensive explanation. The only minor gap is not specifying whether the tool blocks or returns immediately, but overall it's complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains each parameter: project_path, output_path, and config with valid values (profile, debug, release) and a default. This adds meaning beyond the raw parameter titles and 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Export an O3DE project for distribution') that clearly indicates what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from build-related siblings because it explicitly focuses on exporting for distribution, not building or creating projects.

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 clearly states that this is a long-running operation with configurable timeout, which helps an agent understand when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool compared to build_project or start_build.

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