creator_export_inp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: using default atlas settings and not opening the export UI. However, it does not mention side effects like file overwriting, prerequisites (e.g., a loaded puppet), or error behavior, leaving the behavioral profile incomplete.

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 efficient sentences deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral caveat. No redundant wording, and the most important information (export action) is front-loaded.

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, the description adequately covers purpose, settings, and UI behavior. Missing return values and error conditions are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity, so it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'path' parameter ('Absolute destination path for the .inp file'). The tool description adds context about the current puppet but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.

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 ('Export'), resource ('current puppet'), output format ('.inp file'), and key conditions ('using default atlas settings', 'Does not open the export UI'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling import and save 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?

The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool (when you need to export a puppet as a packed .inp) by specifying the action and output. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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