export_case

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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false) with two genuinely useful behavioral facts: results are included by default, and local machine paths are stripped from the file. It omits where the file is written and whether the call returns a path, which is a material gap for a non-idempotent write operation.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and the most consequential caveat (path stripping) both front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 write tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of file handling, the definition should say where the .nscase lands or what the call returns, and it should define the language parameter. It covers scope and sanitization well but leaves destination and one parameter undescribed.

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% and the description only glosses include_results via 'by default'; it never mentions the language parameter at all, leaving the ja/en/zh enum meaning (content language? metadata locale?) entirely undefined. For a 3-parameter tool with no schema documentation, the description carries the burden and fails to compensate for two of three parameters.

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 (write ... to a .nscase file) and enumerates exactly what is packaged: the case, its mesh, and by default the latest finished result. It also names the consumer sibling, import_case, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from export_results.

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 establishes the usage context clearly: this is for handing a case to another Studio, which is opened via import_case. It implies the alternative for results-only export (export_results) through the phrase 'its latest finished result', but never states explicitly when to prefer export_results or when not to use this tool.

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