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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond that: the Admin review/redaction prerequisite, the fact that frames are re-read from current page artifacts so manual blur cannot leak stale text, and the explicit caveat that missing animation or intermediate interaction evidence stays unknown.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (prerequisite, discovery routing, privacy behavior, data limits). It is dense but nearly waste-free; only the framing could be trimmed slightly.

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, the description needn't describe return shape, and it instead covers the non-structural gaps an agent actually needs: availability gating, prerequisite review state, and known evidence limitations. Nothing required to call it 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 the parameter docs already spell out product key format, version pinning ('do not use latest as an alias'), scenario ID provenance, and the environment fallback rule. The description only restates that the scenario comes from list_scenarios/get_scenario_manifest, adding no new syntax or format guidance, so 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 and resource: 'Export a manually recorded scenario as canonical Scene with all referenced screen frames and observed transitions.' The qualifier 'manually recorded' distinguishes it from the replay-based siblings such as get_replay_manifest and get_interface_scene, so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a hard availability gate ('only for a published version after human Admin review/redaction') and routes discovery through list_scenarios and get_scenario_manifest. It stops short of naming the alternative for non-manual/replay scenarios, which is the one remaining inference an agent must make.

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