video_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'render and export' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. Some context is given (auto-generated output path), but key mutation risks are unaddressed.

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?

Well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could be integrated more smoothly. Slightly verbose but efficient overall.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain return values or error conditions, though the output schema may handle that. Adequate but with clear gaps in usage and risk disclosure.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: input_path ('Absolute path to the input video'), output_path ('Where to save the output'), quality ('Quality preset'), and format ('Output format'). It adds value beyond the schema by explaining purpose and constraints (e.g., 'Auto-generated if omitted').

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 clearly states the specific action ('Render and export a video') and distinguishes it from siblings like video_convert (which might change format without rendering) or video_edit (which implies editing rather than export). It specifies the resource ('video') and key aspects ('with quality and format settings').

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_convert or video_merge is provided. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., input file must exist).

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