qc_before_export

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does state 'Read-only' and that problems are reported with their timecode rather than fixed, plus it routes repair to mako. It does not clarify whether the sequence must be open/active or how the report is structured, leaving a small 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the check list, with no filler sentences. The inline parentheticals ('black frames', the proxy reminder) make it slightly run-on, but each clause contributes a distinct check.

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 read-only QC tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, enumerating the reported problem categories effectively tells the agent what comes back. It stops short of explaining sequencing/ordering of results or behavior when the active sequence is absent.

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 three parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only lightly reinforces semantics via 'sequence frame vs the intended delivery,' which gestures at expectFrame without adding format or behavior detail.

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?

Specific verb (check) plus resource (sequence) and scope (before delivery), followed by an explicit enumeration of the defects detected: offline media, disabled clips, gaps, leftover 1–2 frame clips, proxy-pointing clips, low-confidence markers, empty tracks, muted audio, and frame mismatch. This enumeration sharply distinguishes it from siblings like validate_project_for_export, check_offline_media, and get_timeline_gaps.

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?

'Check a sequence before delivery' gives a clear trigger context, and it names the complementary tool mako (quality_check fix) as the remediation path plus 'by hand' as a manual alternative. It does not state explicit exclusions or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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