Team Export to Markdown

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that output is frontmattered Markdown files, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, directory creation, or what happens when output_dir is omitted — the main behavioral risks for a file-writing tool.

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 zero filler; format and target resource come first. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity costs coverage rather than being genuinely concise.

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 explained, but this is an 8-parameter file-writing tool with no required params and the description never addresses default destination, file naming, or whether an existing export is replaced. For a tool that produces side effects on disk, that leaves meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 75%, so most parameters (tags, limit, dates, output_dir, workspace_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail at all, and the undocumented params (use_test_db, project_number) receive no compensating explanation, so it neither helps nor harms beyond baseline.

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 (Export) and resource (team entries) plus the output medium (frontmattered Markdown files), which is enough to separate it from the team-agnostic export_markdown sibling. It does not, however, distinguish itself from team_export_entries, which plausibly covers the same ground, leaving the agent to guess which export path applies.

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 over export_markdown or team_export_entries, no preconditions (does output_dir need to exist?), and no mention that team_import_markdown is the inverse operation. The agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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