Export the open Scenebuilder scene

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: credit behavior (stitching free, never uses costly Extend) and that the tool captures the export payload directly because Flow's export doesn't write a file. This goes beyond annotations, though it omits potential side effects like job creation or state changes implied by readOnlyHint=false.

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 concise: four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose (purpose, cost, credit behavior, technical detail). It is front-loaded with the core action and does not waste words. Every sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and simple behavior (export scene to file), the description is mostly complete: purpose, cost implications, and technical nuance. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites (e.g., scene must be open, file write permissions), but the title partially covers the prerequisite. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is 50% (only out_file has a description). The description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema, failing to explain timeout_seconds or provide usage examples. With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving the agent to infer parameter behavior from the schema alone.

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 verb 'Export' and the specific resource 'currently open Scenebuilder scene' with output format 'MP4 on disk'. It distinguishes from siblings like flow_generate_video by specifying the source (open scene) and adds context about no credit cost for stitching, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use (export the open scene) and notes that stitching is free and Extend is never used, providing cost guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools like flow_generate_video or state prerequisites (e.g., the scene must be open). It gives clear context but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references.

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