export

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose real behavior — presets drive resolution and loudness to -14 LUFS, and a sidecar .srt is written when captions are enabled. It omits whether the export overwrites existing files, where output lands, whether the call blocks or returns a job handle, and any permission or duration constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation name, no filler. The GPU-encoder line repeats enum knowledge from the schema but adds the 'if the machine has one' condition, so it still 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?

With five parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves most of the agent's decision surface unexplained: output destination, filename default behavior, quality-vs-preset interaction, and return semantics. What is present is accurate but insufficient for a terminal, file-writing 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by explaining that presets control resolution and loudness with the concrete -14 LUFS target for youtube/shorts/square, and by recommending GPU encoders. It says nothing about `quality`, `filename` (including the null default), or `project` beyond it being required.

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 opens with 'Final render', which names the operation and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling render_preview by scope. It doesn't name render_preview explicitly, but the verb+resource is specific enough for an agent to select it over preview rendering.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'final' in contrast to render_preview; there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement. The GPU-encoder sentence is parameter-selection advice rather than routing guidance between tools.

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