export_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at the mechanism ('via Godot CLI preset') but does not disclose side effects (writing output files, overwriting existing files), requirements (Godot CLI availability, preset existence), or potential failure modes. For an operation that exports files, this is insufficient transparency.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise in length. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently packed with information. It could have been expanded with usage examples or behavioral notes without becoming verbose. This falls short of the 'every sentence earns its place' standard because the sentence provides only minimal value.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the export output will be, what happens after the export, or any prerequisites. For an export operation that can fail due to missing presets or invalid paths, this lack of context makes the description incomplete.

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%, and each parameter (preset, output_path, project_path) has a detailed description explaining its purpose and default. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics; it merely uses the word 'preset.' Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 uses a specific verb 'Export' and identifies the resource 'project' with the mechanism 'Godot CLI preset.' It is clear that this tool exports the project via a preset, distinguishing it from related tools like read_export_presets or run_project. However, it lacks explicit mention of the produced artifact (a build executable), which would make it perfectly clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_project or launch_editor. It doesn't mention prerequisites like having export_presets.cfg, the need for a valid preset, or whether this is for distributing builds versus running the project. The description implies usage only by its name and short phrase.

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