export_deck

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the optional deletion of the deck from Anki when archive=true. It also mentions the return value (path to the .apkg file). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well, though it does not disclose error conditions or permissions.

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 compact docstring with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the action, parameters, and return value. It could mention handling of nonexistent decks or configuration details, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that 'deck' is the name to export and by revealing the side-effect of 'archive' (deletes the deck). This goes beyond the bare schema property names, especially for the archive parameter.

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 tool exports a deck to a .apkg file in the configured archive directory, using a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('deck'), and output format. This distinguishes it from siblings like import_deck, list_decks, and sync.

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 implies when to use the tool (when exporting a deck) but does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives like import_deck or sync. No guidance is given for choosing this over other deck-related tools beyond the inherent distinction.

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