export_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Exports project' without explaining side effects (e.g., file writes, overwrites), whether it requires a scene to be open, or what happens to existing outputs. This is minimal behavioral information, just enough to know it performs an export action.

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 extremely short, but this reflects under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It only restates the tool's action and offers no structured information about inputs, outputs, or usage context. Every word is redundant with the tool name.

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 two required but undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly. There is no mention of preset formats, output paths, or any constraints. The description leaves the agent guessing at every step.

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%, and the description adds nothing about the two required parameters ('preset' and 'output'). An agent has no idea what values to pass or what these parameters control. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Exports project' essentially restates the tool name (export_project) with no additional qualifiers. It fails to specify what kind of export, what output format, or how it differs from siblings like list_export_presets or get_project_settings. This is a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open project), no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to related tools like list_export_presets that might be needed upstream. The sole description gives the agent no contextual cues for selection.

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