Export a memory to Markdown

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context: the stored memory is unchanged, filesystem path validation (must stay inside vault), and output format compatibility. This enriches behavioral understanding beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the core action, then adds usage context and prerequisites. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the purpose, when to use, prerequisites, return value (file path), and behavioral constraints (path safety). It is fully self-contained and actionable for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by specifying that 'id' must come from a prior recall/search/bootstrap result and that 'project' is required. It also mentions the default output_dir and path constraint, providing extra guidance 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 explicitly states the tool writes a single memory to a Markdown file on disk, specifying the verb (write), resource (stored memory), and output format (Obsidian-compatible Markdown). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the export-to-file action, which is not covered by ygg_recall, ygg_search, etc.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool ('when the user wants to read, edit, or archive a specific memory as a file') and provides prerequisites (memory ID from prior tools, project). It implies alternatives by noting need for prior recall/search/bootstrap, but does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings.

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