export_memory_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little. It does not clarify that export is a non-destructive read, that owner_token acts as authentication, what the archive actually contains, or whether private memories are excluded when public_only is set.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the use-case note follows. It is efficiently sized, though the second sentence is a touch vague about mechanics.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent receives no auth expectations, no notion of what the export contains, and no guidance on the license or profile parameters.

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 0% across 4 parameters (profile, owner_token, license, public_only). The description only loosely gestures at public_only via "public-only export" and says nothing about the required profile, the secret owner_token, or the license field.

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 clear verb+resource ("Export a portable JSON memory archive") and even names the output format, which helps distinguish it from import/list siblings. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as import_public_memory or set_memory_sharing, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 second sentence gives partial usage context by tying public-only export to "sharing or publishing," which is implied guidance to keep public_only=true in those cases. It never states when to use this tool over siblings, nor when-not, so guidance remains implicit.

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