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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does add real behavioral detail: it creates an export record, invokes export-project-v2, runs synchronously, and returns preview/download/project URLs. It omits permissions, cost/credit implications, and failure modes, so the disclosure is useful but incomplete for a mutation 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by mechanism and usage. No filler, though the mechanism sentence ('calls export-project-v2') is arguably internal detail that could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly steps in to name the return values (video preview, download, and project URLs) and describes the synchronous flow. For a 7-parameter tool with a nested settings object, this is nearly complete, missing only cost/auth context.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters including the nested exportSettings object. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 when structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Start a production export for an edit') and distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings like get_export and list_exports by describing it as a starting/production action. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 trailing sentence 'Use these links for final delivery' implies the tool's purpose (final delivery output) but never states when to choose it over get_export or list_exports, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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