Export a memory to Markdown

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by stating the memory is unchanged (aligning with idempotentHint and destructiveHint) and that the output is a file path. No contradictions with annotations. Could mention file overwrite behavior, but overall sufficient.

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 wasted words. The first sentence describes the action, the second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple export tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, action, and return value (file path). Could include error handling, but adequate for the complexity.

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%, and the description adds important context: 'id' must come from prior tools, 'project' is the memory's project, and the default output_dir is explained. This reinforces parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Write') and resource ('ONE stored memory to a human-readable Markdown note'), distinguishes from siblings by requiring a memory id from prior recall/search/bootstrap, and states the memory itself is unchanged.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user wants to read, edit, or archive a specific memory as a file') and provides necessary context about needing a prior memory id and its project. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but the sibling tools list provides implicit differentiation.

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