onenote_export

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it writes to a file and lists supported formats, but does not disclose potential behaviors like overwriting existing files or permission requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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 brief, but the second and third sentences largely repeat schema-provided details, making them somewhat redundant. Still, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains appropriately sized.

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, the description should indicate what the tool returns or how success/failure is communicated. It omits any mention of the operation's result or potential errors, leaving a notable gap for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including the format enum and target_path meaning. The description merely repeats this information without adding new semantic context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's function: exporting a page or section to a file. This verb+resource+destination structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like onenote_get_page or onenote_create_page.

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 implies the tool is for creating external file copies of OneNote content, but it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus alternatives such as onenote_get_page for retrieving content. There is no mention of when not to use it, so guidance is left implicit.

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