mdan_export_backlog

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

The annotations only include openWorldHint: true, so the description carries the burden of exposing behavior. It discloses that dry run is the default, that apply=true sends requests using environment variable tokens, and that re-runs update rather than duplicate. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotation without contradicting it. It does not cover failure modes or token specifics, but the core side-effects are well described.

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?

The description is three sentences with zero fluff: purpose first, then the dry-run/apply mechanism, then the idempotency behavior. Every sentence carries essential information and it is appropriately front-loaded. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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?

Given the schema's moderate parameter descriptions and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational behavior. It clarifies the default dry-run mode, the apply flag, and the update behavior, which are critical for correct invocation. It could be more complete by specifying what the non-dry-run response looks like or authentication prerequisites per target, but the core context is sufficient for an agent to safely call the 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 schema already describes 5 of 7 parameters (71% coverage), leaving only target and apply without descriptions. The description adds high-level behavioral notes (dry run, apply, re-run updates) but does not detail parameter interplay or per-target requirements beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is above 80%? Actually 71%, so baseline is 3, and the description does not substantially elevate parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('epics/stories document'), and a specific set of destinations (CSV, GitHub Issues, Azure DevOps Boards, Jira). It effectively distinguishes the tool from all siblings (graph, memory, workflow tools), which are clearly unrelated. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description gives a clear context for use: it exports the backlog document and has a dry-run default, with an apply flag to actually send. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but there are no close siblings among the listed tools. It could be more explicit about when to choose this over another export mechanism, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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