memory_export_vault

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

The description explains the write behavior: it creates .md files per memory, handles namespaced memories under subdirectories, and claims losslessness. It also notes the vault_path directory is created if missing. It lacks explicit mention of overwrite behavior if files already exist, but overall provides good behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, structural detail, and filtering option. No redundancy or fluff.

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 parameter count and schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks completeness in differentiating from similar export siblings (e.g., memory_export). It does not explain return behavior or error handling, and the absence of an output schema shifts burden to the description, which it partially meets.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the description adds little extra meaning. The vault_path description reiterates the purpose, and scope/namespace are described for filtering. No additional semantic enrichment beyond the schema is provided.

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 clearly states the verb 'write', resource 'memories to Obsidian vault', and specifies the output format (.md with YAML frontmatter). It distinguishes itself from vault_sync by calling itself 'the reverse', providing clear purpose and differentiation.

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 mentions it's the reverse of vault_sync and optional filtering by scope/namespace, which hints at when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to other sibling export tools like memory_export or memory_export_dataset, leaving ambiguity.

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