export_bookmarks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that this is a write operation, that it requires SDR++ to be closed, and that the previous bookmarks file is backed up (i.e., the existing data is replaced but recoverable). It does not describe failure behavior if SDR++ is open or where the backup lives, but the key mutation semantics are surfaced.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the operational constraints. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 covers the precondition and backup behavior. It remains silent on the list_name parameter and on what happens when the 'SDR++ closed' precondition is violated, leaving small but real gaps for a mutation tool.

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 single parameter list_name has 0% schema description coverage and a default of 'SDR Log', yet the description never mentions it. The phrase 'as a bookmark list' hints that a named list is produced, but it does not explain what list_name controls or how the default is used, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: writing the logbook into SDR++'s Frequency Manager as a bookmark list, with a clarifying note that it appears on the waterfall. That is clear enough to distinguish it from every sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with alternatives (none of which export, so differentiation is implicit 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?

It states one important precondition (SDR++ must be closed), which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to choose this tool versus other log-related siblings like search_log or log_signal. Usage is implied rather than framed as a when-to-use rule.

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