Export as an Obsidian vault

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by naming the exact output path (~/.auto-ontology-mcp/wiki/<datasource>), spelling out that re-export replaces *only* generated files (so user edits elsewhere survive), and warning that the export is one-way with no read-back. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before writing to disk.

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?

Front-loaded with what gets produced, then path, then overwrite semantics, then the one-way caveat — a logical order with no filler sentences. The opening sentence is dense with parenthetical and inline-list detail, which costs a little readability but not clarity.

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 single-optional-parameter export tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and annotations covering safety, the description covers everything material: what is emitted, where it lands, what gets overwritten, and the non-round-trip limitation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single optional 'datasource' parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little: it names <datasource> as the path segment and implies the default datasource is used when unspecified, which matches the schema's null default without contradicting it. Marginal but real added meaning.

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?

States a concrete verb (write/export) and a concrete artifact set: one markdown page per Term with synonyms as aliases and relations as [[links]], one per source, an index.md and a log.md. The Obsidian-vault framing plus the one-way-view note separates it from export_ontology and import_ontology among the siblings without needing their schemas.

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 supplies useful operating context — the ontology is exported 'by default', the target folder, and that re-exporting replaces generated pages only — but never states when an agent should choose this over export_ontology, nor any preconditions (e.g. must the datasource be scanned first?). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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