export_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions that a video is exported as MP4 and lists quality presets. It does not describe output_path default behavior, whether the input is modified, file overwrite behavior, or failure conditions.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by a terse list of quality values. There is no filler, though the quality list could have been better integrated or structured.

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 tool with four parameters, one required parameter, and no annotations or schema descriptions, this is too thin. An agent cannot determine how input_path and output_path relate, what fps does, or what side effects or limitations exist. The presence of an output schema does not make up for missing parameter and usage context.

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, but it only documents quality values. The required input_path, the meaning of fps, and the behavior of output_path when left as an empty string are all left unexplained.

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 operation ('Export'), the resource ('a video'), and the target format ('as MP4'). This is enough to distinguish it from the sibling editing and creation tools, though it does not explicitly frame it as a final rendering step.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when in a workflow it should be called, or what the expected inputs and outputs should be. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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