export_profile_state

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds that the output is a single schema-versioned JSON archive and specifies the artist-watchlist location, which is useful. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, directory creation, or whether the operation has any side effects beyond writing the archive.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and content scope, the second adds a useful file-path detail. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple export operation, well-documented parameters, and clear content enumeration, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It does not describe the return value or file-naming behavior, but no output schema exists and the operation's intent is clear enough.

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 100%, so the parameters (output_dir, include_history, response_format) are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'export local sidecar stores' to 'a single schema-versioned JSON archive', and enumerates exactly which stores are included (scenes, genre-tags, playback-ext, search-history, mutations, artist-watchlist). This clearly distinguishes it from export siblings like export_library_json or export_listening_history without needing to open the 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?

The description implies the tool is for backing up or migrating local profile/sidecar state, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives. With several nearby export tools (sidecar_export_bundle, export_library_json, mutation_log_export), the lack of exclusion or alternative guidance leaves some ambiguity.

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