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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only that the call is asynchronous (returns export and job IDs), a fact the output schema likely already conveys. It does not explain the destructive classification, whether re-exporting overwrites prior output, or how the idempotencyKey param interacts with idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action comes first and the follow-up identifier information second; every clause earns its place.

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 output schema and annotations carry the return shape and safety profile, so the description needn't repeat them. But for an async, destructive-tagged export initiation tool, it omits when to invoke it relative to the many export/clip siblings and gives no sense of the job lifecycle beyond the ID handoff, leaving clear gaps.

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 all six parameters including the format/resolution enums and the idempotencyKey are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 ("Export") and resource ("BlitzReels video or native carousel"), which is clear and concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like exports_list, clips_export, or exports_caption_track_get, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only routing hint is that it "return[s] export and job IDs for status checks," which implies a follow-up call but never states when this tool is the right choice versus other export-related siblings.

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