export_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it handles that well: it discloses the side effect ('Writes the file'), the return behavior ('returns its path; it does not return the CSV text'), and the default output location. It does not mention overwrite behavior or permission requirements, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the main purpose, then add return-value behavior, default path, and parameter details. There is no filler, repetition, or redundancy with the input schema.

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?

For a three-parameter file-export tool with no annotations and an output schema present, this description is complete. It states the side effect, default path, override path, quiz-inclusion toggle, and return type, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains output_path by giving the default path and how to override it, and it explains include_quiz with an explicit usage instruction ('Set include_quiz false to export only flashcards'). document_id is left implicit but is obvious from the tool name and resource phrasing.

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 names a specific verb ('Export'), a resource ('a document's flashcards and quiz questions'), and a concrete output ('Anki-importable CSV file on this machine'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_study_items or save_flashcards, which suggest retrieval or saving rather than file export.

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 description makes the primary use case clear: produce an Anki-importable CSV file on disk. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as save_flashcards, save_quiz, or get_study_items, so the guidance on alternatives is only implied rather than stated.

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