export_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool rewrites only files it previously wrote, refuses any other existing file rather than overwriting it, and stamps files for `pull` to keep them updated. These are crucial behavioral traits that inform the agent about safety and idempotency.

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 long, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds meaningful detail about attachment handling, overwrite safety, and the pull stamp, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, attachment persistence, overwrite behavior, and the update stamp. The only missing piece is a description of return values or error handling, but since no output schema is provided, this is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the tool description does not need to add much parameter-specific meaning. The description does not delve into how id/name/dir/file interact, but the schema descriptions already provide sufficient semantics for each field. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write' a note to 'a new Markdown file') and names the resource directly, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming to be 'the one way attachment bytes reach disk,' which highlights its unique niche.

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 phrase 'The one way attachment bytes reach disk' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool—any time attachments must be persisted to disk, there is no alternative. 'Later passes keep it up to date' also indicates that this tool is suitable for ongoing export/sync workflows. Although it doesn't name sibling tools, it provides a clear when-to-use directive.

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