Export data dictionary

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but idempotent and non-destructive action; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating it writes only to the given path and produces a Markdown file. It does not explicitly address overwrite behavior or error conditions, but the annotations plus the explicit path boundary largely cover the typical concerns for a file-writing tool.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and output content, the second explains a practical benefit, and the third provides safety and sibling differentiation. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

Given the low parameter count, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, this description is complete for correct invocation. An agent knows exactly what will be written, where it will be written, and that no other tool in this set performs writes. No output schema is needed for a write action, and no required information 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (schema name and output_path with the .md requirement). The description reinforces these with 'one schema' and 'the path you give it,' but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write a Markdown data dictionary for one schema to a file,' and enumerates exactly what the document includes (every table, column, type, nullability, key, constraint). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'This is the only tool here that writes anything,' so an agent can tell it apart from the read-only introspection tools at a glance.

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 description gives useful context: it explains the benefit of using this tool ('Once written, you can read the schema from disk with no database connection') and explicitly notes it is the only sibling that writes, which frames when to pick this over the other read-only tools. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead for specific cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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