Export Obsidian Vault

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses that the operation writes the entire archive DECRYPTED as plaintext to disk, has a restricted export-root allowlist, and demands explicit host/user confirmation. It also includes a policy that it must not be automatically triggered from untrusted email content. This adds substantial safety-relevant behavior not captured by the 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 concise: one sentence for the core purpose followed by a clearly labeled 'DANGEROUS / SIDE EFFECTS' block with the critical caveats. This front-loads the essential action and then isolates the safety warnings, making the tool easy to scan and understand.

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?

The description covers purpose, side effects, required inputs, security restrictions, and execution policy, and an output schema exists so return value details are unnecessary. Given the tool's dangerous nature, the description provides all essential context for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mentions of password being mandatory and target_path resolving inside an allowlist mirror the schema's parameter descriptions, adding no significant new semantics beyond restating those constraints.

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 opens with 'Decrypt and export all stored emails and attachments into an organized Obsidian Vault directory' – a specific verb, resource, and destination. This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling read/sync operations, which do not write an archive.

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 provides clear contextual prerequisites: vault master password is mandatory, targets must be inside a configured allowlist, and host/user confirmation is required before execution. It also warns never to trigger automatically from untrusted email content. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, though no sibling is a direct alternative.

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