review_export_delivery

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it creates new files only, never overwrites existing ones, and leaves the FL project unsaved/unchanged, plus a preview-first workflow. This is valuable for a file-writing tool, though it sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true and doesn't describe what happens when a target name collides.

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 action, followed by the safety guarantee and then the preview pointer. Three tight sentences with no filler; the mild redundancy between 'creates new' and 'never overwrites' still earns its place as a clarification.

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, return values need not be explained, and annotations plus 100% parameter coverage carry the structure. The description covers behavior, safety, and workflow, but leaves the default output location implicit.

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 review_session_id, formats, and output_directory are already documented structurally. The description restates the JSON/Markdown format choice but adds no syntax or default behavior (e.g., where files land when output_directory is omitted), so baseline 3 applies.

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: writing a Review Session's delivery manifest to new JSON/Markdown files. The output formats are named directly, and the reference to review_get view=delivery_manifest makes its place in the review workflow 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?

Gives a clear workflow cue: preview first with review_get view=delivery_manifest, then write. It establishes the when-to-use context relative to the preview sibling, though it does not spell out when NOT to use it (e.g., what to do if files already exist at the target).

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