export_deliverables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that a ProRes master is exported first, deliverables are derived from it, files use next-free-version naming, and results are logged with measured LUFS. It does not mention asynchronous export progress or failure handling, but the main side effects and workflow are transparent.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main export purpose and every clause carries relevant delivery details. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but for a complex multi-deliverable export tool the length is mostly justified.

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 an 11-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, deliverables, naming, logging, and aspect-version handling. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could say more about monitoring long-running exports or what the tool returns.

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 coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics by listing valid deliverable presets such as youtube_4k, reels, led, and review, and by explaining how client/title/version feed file naming. It still leaves some parameters like waitSeconds, sequenceId, and sequenceName mostly to 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: exporting a sequence for delivery, producing a ProRes master and a set of named deliverables. It clearly distinguishes this batch delivery workflow from generic export tools by naming the deliverables, preset source, file naming, and export log behavior.

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?

It establishes clear usage context: this is for delivery exports with multiple requested deliverables, not a single generic sequence export. It also gives an aspect-version guideline pointing to create_aspect_versions for 9x16 and 1x1, though it does not explicitly compare against siblings like export_sequence or encode_project_item.

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