Export clauses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the writing behavior, return values (path, format, count), and the contract-order preservation. The overwrite behavior is only in the schema param description, not in the tool description, but otherwise it is transparent about what happens.

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?

Three sentences, all useful: the main action, the contract-order behavior, and the format pricing. It is brief, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

The description explains the purpose, the output fields, and the format implications. It does not explicitly state the overwrite safety net (already in schema) or edge cases like empty libraries, but the description is otherwise complete for a simple export tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema.

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%, so the schema already explains path, format, and overwrite. The description adds only the phrase 'markdown is free; json is Pro', which essentially mirrors the schema enum description. It does not add new semantic depth; it earns the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('write'), a specific resource ('the whole library'), and the outcome ('return the path, format and count'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on whole-library export rather than single-clause operations like clause_get or clause_list.

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?

It gives clear context: call when you want to export the whole library to one file, preserves contract order for re-import, and explains format pricing. It does not explicitly name alternatives like clause_import, but the intent is obvious; it lacks only an explicit when-not/alternative statement.

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