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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it replaces the delivery pointer and preserves earlier exports, telling the agent exactly what state changes and what is retained.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the side-effect/precondition detail. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation's precondition and effect on state. It is slightly under-complete on parameter meaning and on routing to alternatives, but adequate for a 5-param delivery 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 coverage is only 20% (essentially just workspaceId's UUID note), so the description must carry the load. It only indirectly clarifies confirmVisualQa as a QA gate; clipId, exportId, and especially idempotencyKey are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 precise verb+resource: promoting a completed export to the accepted delivery for a clip. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like clips_export, exports_start, or exports_list by describing a selection/pointer operation rather than a creation one.

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 implies the precondition 'after explicit visual-QA confirmation,' which tells the agent when it is legitimate to call this tool. However, it names no alternative tools and gives no when-not guidance (e.g. what to do if QA has not passed, or how this relates to exports_list).

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