memory_obsidian_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that directories are created, that matching generated filenames are overwritten, that an audit entry is recorded, and that vaultDir is constrained to AGENTMEMORY_EXPORT_ROOT (~/.agentmemory). These are exactly the mutation, safety and environment facts an agent needs before invoking a filesystem-writing tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: what it writes, then the types/default rule, then the path constraint, then side effects and return values, then the alternative tool. Every sentence carries load and there is no filler.

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, yet the description fully specifies the return value ('per-type exported counts, vaultDir and any per-file errors'), along with side effects, defaults and the path constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'types is comma-separated' and the omission-equals-all default, plus the AGENTMEMORY_EXPORT_ROOT containment rule for vaultDir (the schema only gives the ~/.agentmemory/vault/ default). The slight mismatch between the description's stated root and the schema's default path is a minor ambiguity.

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?

Specific verb+resource+format: 'Write Obsidian Markdown notes and MOC.md' covering the exact entity types (memories, lessons, crystals, sessions) with frontmatter and wikilinks. It clearly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming memory_export as the JSON-output variant, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

States the default behavior explicitly ('omission exports all four collections') and routes to the alternative: 'Use memory_export for returned JSON instead of filesystem output.' This is clear context plus a named alternative, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance for other cases (e.g. read-only environments, large vaults).

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