project_export_file

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered structurally; no contradiction (export reads the project and writes a file, consistent with readOnly=false). The description adds useful output context — a ZIP of human-readable newline-delimited JSON arrays — but it mostly describes the backup/validate behavior of the *upload* tools rather than this tool's own response, overwrite behavior, 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?

The purpose and archive-contents sentences are front-loaded and earn their place. However, the long FAST-BATCH WORKFLOW paragraph is largely about the save/upload/validate siblings, so it is tangential padding relative to this tool's specific job.

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 no output schema, the description does explain the artifact produced (file structure and internal format) and the surrounding workflow, so the agent understands what it gets. It omits the response shape and overwrite semantics for the target filePath, keeping it short of 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 description coverage is 100%, so filePath, fileType, and instance_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default nuances beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Export the entire current project as a .epro file (ZIP archive) saved directly to a local path') and enumerates the archive contents (project.json, SHEET/, PCB/, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from PCB-only export siblings like pcb_export_to_file and from its counterpart project_import_file.

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 FAST-BATCH WORKFLOW paragraph tells the agent exactly when this tool is preferable (many changes at once vs. per-primitive MCP calls) and names the complementary tools (document_save_to_file, project_import_file, document_load_from_file, document_validate). It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' exclusion, but the routing condition is clear.

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