export_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the action and output types but omits critical details such as whether the operation modifies the deck, what happens if the deck does not exist, file overwrite behavior, error handling, or side effects on media files. The description also fails to mention that include_media controls whether media is bundled, which is a behavioral nuance.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and output formats. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. It does not explain how to specify the deck, the target path, or the include_media flag, nor does it mention path conventions or required permissions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input semantics remain underspecified, making the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It mentions the three format types, which partially explains the 'format' parameter, but it does not clarify 'deck_name', 'target_path', or 'include_media'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides via names, types, and defaults, leaving the agent to guess the exact meaning of these inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('a deck'), and lists three concrete output formats (.apkg, .colpkg, JSON). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, none of which perform export functionality, so an agent can immediately identify its unique purpose.

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 implicitly indicates this is the export tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. However, since no sibling tool offers export capabilities, the usage context is clear by exclusion. The description could mention typical use cases like backup or migration, but it's not necessary given the tool's uniqueness.

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