export_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does surprisingly well: it discloses the output format, the locked-note edge case (body withheld, title plus explanation returned), and the failure profile (403/404 mirroring get_note). It omits auth requirements and any note about side effects, but for a read/export operation the edge-case and error disclosure are genuinely useful.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: output shape, edge case, error profile. The opening is slightly noun-phrase heavy rather than verb-first, but there is no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers format, the locked-note case, and error codes. The main gap is the undocumented input identifier and the unexplained mechanics of the 'password' behavior, which is mentioned without saying how a caller supplies one.

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 0% and the description says nothing about note_id — not even that it is the same identifier accepted by get_note. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the complete absence of schema documentation as the guidance requires.

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 specifies the resource and the exact output ('a single note rendered as a standalone Markdown file ... title as an H1, followed by the body'), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the bulk sibling export_notes. It never names export_notes explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives, even though export_notes (plural) is a close sibling. The description describes behavior of the operation but never says under what conditions an agent should pick this tool over get_note or export_notes.

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