Export Poietic plane

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the export format and target plane, but does not mention whether an existing output file is overwritten, whether any workspace restrictions apply, what the tool returns on success or failure, or any side effects. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for a file-writing 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object, then clarifies the purpose. There is no redundant wording; every phrase adds useful meaning.

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 export tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and format. However, it omits behavioral details like overwrite behavior and return values, and with no annotations to fill that gap, the description is not fully complete for an agent invoking it without extra context.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema: it restates the default 'current plane' concept and the intended use for 'later import', but does not provide deeper semantics such as path resolution rules or format constraints.

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 action ('Export') on a specific resource ('the current (or given) plane') with a precise output format ('a poietic design file'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the file is for 'later import', which contrasts with poietic_export_svg and poietic_import_plane.

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 phrase 'for later import' implies the intended use case, and 'current (or given)' hints at flexibility. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like poietic_export_svg for visual export or explain when not to use this tool, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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