video_project_recipe_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits — the revision must be 'verified' and the output is 'path-free portable' — but says nothing about what mutation or file writes occur, where artifacts land, or any permission/rate constraints. For a no-annotation export tool this is a substantive gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is tightly written, though the extreme terseness is arguably under-specification rather than elegance given the tool's 8-parameter surface.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a mutation/export tool with zero annotation coverage and eight undocumented parameters the one-line description is far short of complete. It omits preconditions, side effects, and any parameter guidance.

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% across 8 parameters (operations, policies, review_gates, required_checks, intent_verb, project_dir, edit_project_id, revision_id), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not explain what 'operations' or the various gate/check arrays contain, so an agent is left guessing on every parameter.

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 names a specific verb (export) and resource (a verified edit revision rendered as a portable recipe), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling replay (video_project_recipe_replay) and capture (video_recipe_capture) tools. The word 'recipe' is domain jargon but consistent with the sibling naming, so intent is legible.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no statement of prerequisites for choosing this over recipe_replay or recipe_capture. The word 'verified' hints at a precondition but never states it as a usage rule.

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