wiki_export

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description meaningfully scopes that destructiveness: it explains that the previous export is overwritten while the wiki itself is never touched, which is precisely the risk an agent needs bounded. It also discloses the return value ('returns the path'). It stops short of covering permissions or failure modes, but it adds real context beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by the safety-critical caveat. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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 two-parameter, no-required-params tool with no output schema, the description covers destination, format options, defaults, return value, and the destructive side effect. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema (format's html/obsidian meanings, agent_id's default). The description restates the same defaults ('yours by default', 'one HTML file (default)') without adding syntax or behavior not already in the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Export a wiki'), names the output location (<home>/exports), both output formats with defaults, and the return value. There is no sibling export tool to confuse it with, so no differentiation is needed, and none of the sibling read/write/lint tools could be mistaken for this.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'yours by default' signals the agent_id parameter lets you target another agent's wiki, and the format defaults are given. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no note on when the Obsidian versus HTML format should be chosen beyond the raw format descriptions.

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