export_library

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

The description adds the useful context that output is written to './exports'. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, which is consistent with the description. However, it doesn't mention return values, overwrite behavior, or naming conventions, so transparency is partial.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and output location without unnecessary detail.

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?

With four parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse to be complete. It doesn't clarify the relationship between 'full library' and the 'type' or 'libraryKey' parameters, what the tool returns, or the default filename pattern. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema definitions.

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 clearly states the tool exports a full library to a JSON file in './exports'. The verb 'export' is specific, and the resource (library) and output format are unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve, search, or manage media.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to export a library to a JSON file. Although it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear because no sibling tool offers export functionality. This provides sufficient guidance for when to use it.

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