Export board

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing content scope (text formats follow reading order and omit comments and sub-board contents; pdf/png are a snapshot of the canvas) and, critically, that anyone holding file_url can download the file and that Milanote deletes it after about a day. That expiry and public-link behavior is exactly the kind of operational fact an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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, front-loaded with the verb and format list, then return-shape, then the caveats about content scope and link expiry. No sentence is filler; each carries a distinct operational fact.

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?

With no output schema present, the description takes on the return-value burden and does so: it says which field carries the payload for which format group. Combined with the scope and expiry notes, an agent has everything needed to call this and handle the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns more by explaining the semantic consequence of each enum value rather than just naming it — text formats populate `content`, binary formats populate `file_url`. It adds no extra detail on `board_id` beyond the schema's own 'Board ID or board URL' note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export a board') and enumerates the exact output formats, plus names the equivalent UI affordance ('as the Export menu does'). No sibling tool performs exports, so the tool's identity is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

There is no competing sibling to route away from, and the description instead gives selection guidance between formats by stating what each returns ('markdown and plain_text return the text in content; word, pdf and png return only file_url'). It does not state prerequisites (e.g. access level needed on the board), which keeps it from a 5.

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