Export project as RIS XML

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: exact output format/encoding, that the project path and saved state are untouched, that portfolios are refused, and that there is no undo step. It stops short of 5 only because it says nothing about permissions or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the format, then the constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical format details make the opening sentence dense. Still tight and purposeful overall.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and the rich annotations carry the safety profile. Given that, the description covers format, overwrite condition, non-mutation of the project, portfolio refusal, and no-undo, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already defines both parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that overwrite:true is required when the file already exists, which clarifies the consequence of omitting it.

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 and resource (writes the open project into an .xml file) plus the exact target format (rillprj version 13, UTF-8, RIS upload form). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the older File-menu 'save as XML', so an agent can tell it apart from the other save/ris_save siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives real usage context: overwrite:true is required when the target exists, and a portfolio is refused. It also contrasts the tool with the alternative File-menu save, but it does not explicitly route against the many sibling save tools (project_file_save_as, project_ris_save_as, portfolio_project_files_save), so it stops short of full when-to-use/alternative guidance.

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