Export project

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

Annotations only give the generic safe-mutation profile (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation is asynchronous, latency is minutes-scale, and the response may be a status rather than a finished file. It does not mention whether the export can be cancelled or re-run, so it falls short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information (return shape, latency, user-facing messaging). The trailing 'Tell the user that wait up front' is slightly awkwardly phrased but earns its place as an instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The async/latency disclosure plus the return-shape hint make this sufficient for correct invocation, though a note about follow-up polling via get_project_export or task listing would have closed the loop.

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% with only two parameters (projectId and an enum quality with its own 'Omit for the default' note), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning; 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 ('Export a project to an MP4') plus the return shape ('status or download URL'), which is far more than the bare title. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_project_export (which retrieves an existing export) but never names that 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?

The timing note ('Renders often take a few minutes. Tell the user that wait up front') gives real operational context for a long-running job. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_project_export or the async-task/guidance siblings, so usage selection is only implied.

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