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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior: it costs nothing, the whole file comes back in `inhalt` with a filename to write to disk, media are FilmLab URLs needing relink by clip name, plus per-format lossiness (EDL no paths/transitions, otio no audio). That is real operational context beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and cost, then format trade-offs, then the procedural relink note. Dense but nearly every sentence carries actionable content; the trailing Resolve relink instructions push it slightly toward long, but nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload (`inhalt` + filename) and the relink workflow. For a 2-parameter read-only export tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and deliver the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still earns above-baseline by explaining what each enum value actually yields (fcpxml carries transitions as centered cross dissolves, edl carries up to 4 audio channels, otio drops audio/transitions). seq_id semantics are left to the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource+scope: 'Export ONE sequence as an editing file' for three named NLEs, with the goal (finish the cut there). This is unmistakably distinct from generation/export siblings.

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?

Excellent format-selection guidance: fcpxml recommended for Resolve, edl for Premiere (with the reason: no fcpxml support, OTIO only in Beta), otio for OpenTimelineIO tools. It stops short of routing between sibling tools (lab_start_export, lab_get_export, lab_stems_export), so it doesn't fully answer 'when this tool vs. those'.

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