onenote_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it names the write destination (data/exports/<timestamp>/), discloses asynchronous/background execution, and notes the 'already-running' response state implying idempotency guard. It omits prerequisites such as auth requirements, overwrite behavior on repeat runs, and any size limits, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized under Return Format and Examples headers; the async pointer to onenote_export_status is placed early where it matters. The explicit Return Format section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief and not wasteful.

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?

Covers the essential facts an agent needs: what is produced, where it lands, that it is asynchronous, and which sibling reports progress. Because an output schema exists the return-value explanation is not strictly required, and minor gaps (auth, overwrite semantics) are low-risk for a background read/export operation.

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 100% ('Notebook ID, or empty for all notebooks'), so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds only an example call showing notebook_id usage, which is marginal value beyond the schema—baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Back up notebooks to Markdown files') plus the exact output shape ('one per page + index'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like onenote_index_start or onenote_get_page. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it runs in the background and directs the agent to call onenote_export_status to follow up, which is the key routing decision. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or distinguish it from onenote_index_start, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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