export_backlog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never says whether the export is returned as text, as a path, or written to disk — the destructive/read-only and file-writing profile is left entirely to the schema's `save` field. It also omits size limits, permissions, and ordering guarantees beyond "most important first".

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 the resource and formats named first and content detail appended after the colon. No filler, though the embedded parenthetical makes it slightly dense to parse.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the most consequential question unanswered: what does the caller receive back, and does `save` change that. Compared to what an agent needs to invoke an export correctly, this is thin.

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 coverage is only 33% (only `save` is documented), so the description must compensate; it does partially by naming both formats and the ordering semantics, which maps to the `format` enum and clarifies output content. `projectId` is left unexplained, though its meaning is self-evident from the tool name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Export a project backlog") plus the two output formats and the content included (requirements, user stories). This clearly separates it from siblings like export_dashboard or project_summary, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus project_summary, search_items, or the Jira push/pull tools. Usage is only implied by the verb "Export" — an agent must infer the scenario itself.

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