export_project

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that a job_id must be a succeeded job to get slicing artifacts, which is useful context, but it says nothing about overwrite behavior on an existing destination or permissions.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the key job_id constraint is front-loaded. Slightly awkward wording ("Export to a new filename") but structurally efficient.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is thin: it omits destination/revision semantics and the export result. It covers the trickiest parameter (job_id) but leaves the agent under-informed about the rest.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only clarifies job_id (must be a succeeded job); it says nothing about revision, project_id, or what destination format means, leaving most of the 4 parameters unexplained beyond their self-evident names.

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?

"Export to a new filename" gives a clear verb+resource when combined with the name export_project, and the second sentence narrows the scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling, but no sibling in the list is a competing export path, so ambiguity is low.

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?

It gives one conditional guideline: supply a succeeded job_id to export that exact revision with slicing artifacts. This implies when to pass job_id, but there is no guidance on when to export without a job_id, when to prefer restore_revision or open_in_studio, or any prerequisites.

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