export.package

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the side effects of the archive contents (spec.json with measured duration/resolution/fps/codecs/loudness/preset, checksums.sha256), which is genuinely useful context. It omits failure/mutation semantics: whether an existing output errors out, that overwrite is required to replace it, and that loudness normalization may run before packaging (that only appears in the schema).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded on the action, with the payload as a compact parenthetical list. Every listed item earns its place, though the dense enumeration slightly slows scanning.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with a nested object and no annotations or output schema, the definition covers the produced archive well. It stops short of the delivery-critical edge cases: overwrite behavior, error conditions, and whether loudness normalization is applied at export time versus inherited from a sidecar.

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 baseline is 3; every parameter is already documented including defaults and ranges. The description adds the framing that captions become captions.srt and that spec.json records loudness/preset, but no syntax or format guidance beyond 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?

A specific verb ('Build a delivery ZIP') plus an enumerated manifest of what goes in it: media file, captions.srt, spec.json, checksums.sha256. This is clearly distinct from render/transcribe/captions.render, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

Delivery packaging is implied by 'delivery ZIP' and the checksum/spec contents, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. 'after render'), and no statement about what happens if the .zip exists (overwrite is only in the schema).

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