export_wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state locally. The description usefully adds that it is a whole-wiki operation ('every Markdown page') across four page categories, but it never says the files are overwritten or where they are written, so the destructive/overwrite nature is only implied.

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 that states the scope and the page categories with no filler. It could be tightened because 'from its database' is slightly ambiguous about the direction of the operation.

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 described. However, for a mutating whole-wiki export the description omits where pages are written and when to invoke it, leaving the operational context only partially covered.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'project' parameter, including the note that it may be omitted when only one project exists. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete verb+resource: 'Rewrite every Markdown page of a project's wiki' and enumerates the affected page types (entities, sources, index, log). It is clear enough to distinguish an agent's intent, though it never contrasts itself with sibling wiki tools like wiki_tasks or next_wiki_article, and the name 'export' versus the verb 'rewrite' creates minor tension.

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: nothing says when to run this versus wiki_tasks, next_wiki_article, or get_article_page, nor any prerequisites such as needing a populated database or an open project. The agent must infer timing entirely.

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