Export the text track of an open draft as an SRT file so captions can be reviewed in any subtitle editor.
Export the text track of the open draft as an SRT subtitle file, so the captions can be checked in any subtitle editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Open draft name | |
| overwrite | No | Replace an existing file (default false) | |
| outputPath | Yes | Absolute path of the .srt file to write |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.20.1Input schema / properties / overwriteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Replace an existing file (default false)",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the open-draft prerequisite and that a file is written, but omits important operational details: overwrite behavior, whether existing files are refused or replaced, any permission requirements, and whether the export is read-only with respect to the draft. This is a significant gap for a tool that writes to disk.
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?
A single tightly written sentence with the action and output format front-loaded and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential operation and purpose.
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 a simple file-export operation, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and prerequisite. But without annotations it should say more about overwrite behavior and side effects; the description alone leaves an agent guessing about file collision handling.
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 schema already documents name, overwrite, and outputPath thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not value-adding; 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"), a specific resource ("text track of the open draft"), and a concrete output format ("SRT subtitle file"). It is clearly distinct from siblings like save_draft or add_subtitles, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast against them.
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?
Provides an implied use case — checking captions in any subtitle editor — which suggests this is for external review rather than editing the draft. However, it does not state when to prefer this over save_draft or inspect_draft, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the draft being open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.