export_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by disclosing that it operates on the cached collection (implying a sync prerequisite) and the default path pattern. It does not disclose overwrite behavior if the target file already exists, which is a real gap for a write-to-disk tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The action, format options, and default location are all packed in without padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what the tool writes and the default destination, which is most of what an agent needs for a simple 2-param tool. Gaps remain around whether an existing file is overwritten and the sync prerequisite implied by 'cached', so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 carries the burden. It partially compensates by enumerating the format values (CSV or JSON) for the 'format' parameter and by explaining the default location pattern (~/.discogs-mcp/collection.<fmt>) tied to 'path'. However, it never explains that 'path' is a caller-supplied override or its expected form, leaving that parameter under-specified.

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+resource ('Write the cached collection') plus the output formats (CSV or JSON), so an agent can distinguish it from the read-oriented collection siblings (get_collection, query_collection, collection_summary). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of the 5 tier, but the 'write to a file' framing is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is not told when exporting is preferable to get_collection or query_collection, nor that the collection should be synced first for the cache to be current. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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