ygo_export_database_and_scripts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal implicitly that this is a filesystem-writing, potentially long-running bulk generation producing two artifact types, which is useful context. However, it never says what happens to pre-existing files at the supplied paths (overwrite vs. abort), whether the DOCX must already be validated, or what a partial failure leaves behind.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary verb and states the two deliverables immediately, with zero filler or restated title text. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema and four fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential what and where. It stops short of the operational context an agent needs before calling a heavy write operation: preconditions on the input DOCX, overwrite semantics, and expected failure modes.

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 docxPath, outputDbPath, outputScriptsDir and the omega/edopro/generic enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the connection that the simulator profile governs which database target is meaningful, which is a marginal gain over the structured fields.

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 two specific actions with named resources: compiling the Master DOCX into a SQLite database (.cdb / gm.db) and generating every c<id>.lua script. The concrete output formats and filenames let an agent distinguish this bulk-export tool from siblings like ygo_export_deck or ygo_build_full_pipeline without opening any 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 phrase 'for the chosen profile' implies the tool is the packaging/export step after content authoring, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the prerequisite validation step (e.g. ygo_read_and_validate_docx), and no exclusion against the other export tools in the sibling list. Usage must be inferred from the output artifacts named.

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