export_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Export' implies producing a build artifact, but the description doesn't disclose blocking behavior, whether outputPath is overwritten, error handling, or whether the editor/Godot binary must be running. For a tool with side effects (file creation), this is a significant gap.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with zero wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient and appropriately minimal given the schema covers parameter details, though it forgoes the opportunity to add brief usage context without bloat.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of behavioral context, yet it omits prerequisites (a valid preset must exist), side effects (file overwrite at outputPath), and invocation expectations. For a build/export operation that produces a file artifact, the agent is left to guess at critical behavior.

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 four parameters (projectPath, presetName, outputPath, debug) are documented in the schema, including the debug default. The description's 'using a preset' loosely maps to presetName but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Export'), a clear resource ('Godot project'), and the mechanism ('using a preset'). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like export_mesh_library (different resource) and manage_export_presets (manages presets rather than performing exports), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that an export preset must already exist (e.g., created via manage_export_presets), that run_project is for executing rather than building, or any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer all usage context.

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