export_material_markdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — output stays local and is never publicly uploaded — which resolves the ambiguity of openWorldHint=true, but it omits where the file is written, overwrite behavior, and whether it requires auth.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the local-only constraint appended. Nothing in the text is redundant.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should at least clarify what 'id' accepts and what fileId adds. It conveys the output artifact but omits where the file lands and how the two identifiers relate, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it.

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 carries full burden for the two parameters (required 'id' with a compound file:/resource:/folder: regex, optional 'fileId'). The description explains neither the id prefixes nor the id-vs-fileId relationship, leaving the agent to guess how to satisfy the required parameter.

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+resource+target: it extracts material text (with source links and page/slide delimiters) and writes it to a local Markdown file. This clearly separates it from siblings like download_material (binary) and read_material (inline read), though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'save to a local Markdown file'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against download_material / read_material / sync_materials. The closing 'does not publicly upload' hints at a privacy/local-use context but is not framed as guidance.

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