Export board / history / optimizer

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotent=true, and the description correctly explains where the non-read side effect lives: writing into the app's exports folder, and that fastlane always emits a zip of deliver/supply metadata. That is real added context, though it doesn't say what the exports folder path is or whether an existing file is overwritten.

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?

Three compact sentences with the primary behavior (default = return content, truncated) front-loaded ahead of the saveToFile and fastlane exceptions. The parenthetical '(cut at maxChars)' and 'format fastlane (what optimizer only)' are terse but readable; no sentence is filler.

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 five-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers both modes, the truncation limit interaction, and the fastlane special case. Remaining gaps are minor: the response shape when returning content, overwrite behavior, and where exactly the exports folder lives.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the interaction between maxChars truncation and the default return path, and by adding a constraint the schema does not encode (fastlane is only valid with what=optimizer).

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (export) and the exact resource set the enum constrains: board, rank history, optimizer drafts, plus the output formats. This clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_project_board or get_optimizer, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 states the branch conditions for the two modes — default returns content, saveToFile:true writes to the exports folder — and flags that format=fastlane only applies to what=optimizer. It stops short of saying when to prefer an export over simply reading the board via get_project_board.

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