hcl_export_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds 'atomically', telling the agent the export is all-or-nothing. However, it does not say whether an existing artifact with the same name is overwritten, what files are produced, or how the non-idempotent flag (idempotentHint=false) should be handled despite an idempotency_key parameter existing.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the atomicity/scope clauses come early. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves no room for the operational context this tool needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return story, and it partly does: it names the bundle contents (plan/config/operation) and the destination root. Still missing is what is actually returned (paths, listing, checksum), whether an existing artifact is replaced, and whether the plan must be pre-validated.

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 0% with three parameters, including a large nested topology plan object; the description only vaguely gestures at 'plan' and 'output root'. The idempotency_key parameter is never mentioned, and nothing clarifies what artifact_name controls (directory name? file stem? format?).

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?

It states a specific verb ('export') and a concrete artifact ('offline plan/config/operation bundle') with a scoping location ('under the output root'). It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as hcl_generate_configs, hcl_generate_operations, or hcl_save_project, so an agent cannot tell without opening schemas whether this writes files or produces a combined package.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does a plan need to be validated or staged first?), and no named alternative. The word 'offline' hints at the boundary versus live deployment tools, but the agent must infer it.

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