export

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety framing is covered, yet the description adds nothing behavioral — it says 'backup', which reads as a safe copy, without reconciling that against the destructive flag. Critically, it is silent on the traits that actually matter here: `data-source` auto may serve stale local-store data (see `max-age`), `no-cache` bypasses caching, and `dry-run`/`receipt` change side effects.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler — the verb and formats come first and the use cases trail. It is efficiently written, though that efficiency comes at the cost of the detail the task actually requires.

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 26-parameter, destructive-flagged, open-world tool with no output schema and an undefined `resource` domain, a single sentence is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent which resources exist, how confirmation works, or what the output record shape is, leaving major ambiguity for invocation.

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 100%, so baseline 3 applies and the schema documents all 26 parameters thoroughly. The description neither adds meaning beyond the schema nor fully aligns with it: it advertises only JSONL/JSON while the schema exposes csv, plain, and quiet output modes.

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 names two output formats plus three motivating use cases (backup, migration, analysis). However, the resource is left as the wholly generic word 'data' — nothing says what entities can be exported (cards, decks, notes, search results) — and no sibling is named, so an agent cannot tell when this beats `search`, `sql`, or `card_search` for producing data.

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?

'for backup, migration, or analysis' implies the intent-level context for calling it, which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when/when-not, no mention of the read-oriented siblings that overlap (search, sql, card_search), and no prerequisites despite a `yes`/`no-input` confirmation flow being part of the schema.

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