export_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that rendering happens in the browser and encoding occurs, and it requires live mode. However, it does not mention potential performance impacts, file overwriting behavior, or what happens on failure. Some gaps remain.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds essential context (how it works and a prerequisite). Every word 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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, enums, no output schema), the description covers the main action but omits success/failure info, side effects, and error handling. It is adequate but could be more comprehensive about what the tool returns or confirms.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for each parameter; it only gives a general overview. No additional value is provided.

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 clearly states it exports animation to video (MP4/WebM). It mentions rendering and encoding, and a prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from image exports, the format and verb make it distinct.

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 description includes the requirement 'live mode with a connected browser,' which is a usage condition. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., export_image for still frames). The usage is implied but not fully clarified.

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