Export Aaf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, but they cannot express 'this backend cannot run this at all'. The description adds that critical runtime constraint and the auth requirement of the alternative route, which is exactly the kind of context the structured fields lack.

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, zero waste, with the blocker stated first and the remedy second. Nothing superfluous.

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 disabled tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: it cannot be called here, and here is the supported path. It does not describe output, but an output schema exists and the tool is unreachable anyway, so this is essentially complete.

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% and all five parameters are documented in the schema (output_path, sample_rate, mix_down_video, bits_per_sample, explode_to_mono). The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable given the tool is unavailable and the schema carries the load.

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 immediately discloses that the tool is not usable on the CEP backend, which is the single most decision-relevant fact about it, and points to the working alternative. It does not explicitly restate that the tool exports AAF, relying on the name/title for that, but for a disabled tool the unavailability statement is the purpose.

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 gives an explicit when-not (CEP backend) plus the named replacement and its exact prerequisite (export_aaf_uxp with an authenticated Premiere 26.3+ UXP bridge). An agent needs no inference to route correctly.

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