Export entire world to disk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses that the tool makes hundreds of API calls, takes minutes, returns only a summary, writes data to disk rather than context, refuses to write into non-empty non-export directories, and requires an absolute output path. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 somewhat long with a large list of included entities, but every sentence provides valuable information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically (what, how long, return behavior, constraints). A slight trimming could improve conciseness, but it remains efficient for the tool's complexity.

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 complex tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: full content list, side effects (disk writes, downloads), performance (minutes), return behavior, and special conditions (empty dir, absolute path). The user/agent has enough to invoke and handle the tool 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema: output_dir must be absolute, is created if missing, and must be empty or a previous export. It also clarifies world_id is a UUID. This enriches the schema definitions.

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 clones a COMPLETE world to a local directory as raw full-granularity JSON, listing all included data types (articles, categories, secrets, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Clone'/export) and resource ('world'), and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_world or list_articles. No ambiguity.

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 context for when to use the tool (full migration, rewriting @mention links) and includes important usage caveats (data goes to disk, not into context; read specific exported files afterwards). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool, though no sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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