process_kindle_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns 'prompt packages plus explicit instructions' rather than final data, and mandates a specific multi-step workflow (generate internally → push to Notion). Lacks details on error handling or malformed input behavior.

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 sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with 'PRIMARY TOOL' to establish hierarchy among siblings. Each sentence serves distinct purposes: (1) capability definition, (2) mandatory workflow instructions, (3) output constraints. Efficient and actionable.

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?

Despite missing annotations and output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to execute correctly. It compensates for the lack of structured output description by explaining the return type (prompt packages + instructions) and the critical post-call orchestration sequence involving sibling tools.

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% for the single 'rawText' parameter, which is well-described in the schema itself. The description essentially restates the schema's content ('Given the raw content...'), meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas without adding significant semantic depth.

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?

Description uses specific verbs (parses, returns) and clearly identifies the resource (Kindle HTML export or My Clippings.txt). It distinguishes from sibling 'parse_kindle_clippings' by explicitly handling both formats (HTML and txt), positioning itself as the comprehensive option.

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?

Provides explicit workflow instructions: 'After calling this tool, you MUST follow the returned instructions exactly' and mandates subsequent calls to sibling 'push_to_notion'. Includes clear exclusions: 'Do not display summaries in chat — only report the Notion page URLs', defining exactly when and how to use the tool.

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