export_wiki

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope ('every' page) and the content set it overwrites, which is genuinely useful, but it does not say where files are written, whether existing pages are overwritten or deleted, or what permission the operation requires.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no padding. 'From its database' is the only slightly redundant clause, but it usefully clarifies the source of the rewritten content.

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 no explanation, and the single optional parameter is well covered by the schema. For a destructive, filesystem-touching rewrite, however, the description omits key context such as the target location and how existing pages are handled.

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 has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the optional project name and its default. The description adds nothing about the project argument, leaving it at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Names a specific verb (rewrite/export), the resource (every Markdown page of a project's wiki), and enumerates the page types (entities, sources, index, log) plus the source of truth (its database). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_article_page or wiki_tasks, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the 28 sibling tools (e.g., wiki_tasks, get_article_page). An agent cannot tell from this text when an export/rewrite is appropriate versus other wiki operations.

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