export_translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral nuance by stating that it returns a list of downloadable file URLs and does not download file content itself, which is beyond what annotations convey. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the list of optional parameters and return behavior are stated efficiently. Every sentence adds value; it is concise without being under-specified.

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?

Given 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: it states the return type (list of URLs) and that it does not download content. However, it does not clarify expected response structure beyond 'list of URLs' (e.g., expiration, format of URL objects) or any prerequisites like project ID context. For an export tool, this is a minor gap but not a blocker.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description lists parameters and gives examples of downloadFormat values, but this largely repeats the enum values already present. No additional meaning or usage nuance is added beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific action (export translations), the resource (from your SimpleLocalize project), and the outcome (to downloadable file(s)). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on export vs. import/get operations, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that it returns URLs rather than content, and lists optional parameters, giving context on what to expect. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_translations or import_translations, nor does it provide any 'when-not-to-use' guidance. Usage context is implied but not specified.

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