Export Frame

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

Annotations already declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses what the output does and does not verify (keyframed animation, temporal curves, playback), giving an agent real behavioral context about output fidelity.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but every clause carries a distinct caveat, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present and only two well-documented params, the return format needn't be explained. However, in a crowded field of frame-export siblings (capture_frame, export_sequence_*_review_frames), the description stops short of routing the agent, leaving a gap.

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 output_path (extension determines format) and time_seconds (playhead default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (still image/frame) with a distinguishing qualifier ('file-verified'), which separates it from the raw-capture siblings. It does not explicitly name capture_frame, but the mention of 'QE frame capture' hints at the contrast.

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?

The caveat about QE frame capture implies when this tool differs from a plain capture, but it never states when to choose export_frame over capture_frame or the review-frames siblings. Usage is left to inference.

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