export_aaf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't. It does implicitly signal a dependency on an active sequence (behavioral context worth something), but says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing file at outputPath, whether the call blocks on a render, what permissions/DiskCache are needed, or whether the sequence is modified.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the format and source are stated first. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a five-parameter export tool.

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?

Five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-adjacent operation that writes files to disk. The description never covers the return value (success/path), failure modes for an invalid outputPath, or the Pro Tools round-trip caveats implied by "etc." — too thin for the complexity.

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% and each of the five parameters carries its own description and default (48000 Hz, 16-bit, mixdown/explode false), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format constraints or guidance on the optional conversion flags, so 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?

Names a specific verb (export), the exact source resource (the active sequence), and the output format (AAF), which is what actually distinguishes it from export_omf/export_edl/export_final_cut_xml. It stops short of an explicit sibling contrast, but the format name does most of the disambiguating work.

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?

"for Pro Tools, etc." implies the intended workflow and hints at the interchange-tool family, but with five sibling exporters (export_sequence, export_omf, export_edl, export_final_cut_xml, export_direct) the description never states when to pick AAF over OMF or when not to use it. Usage must be inferred from the format name alone.

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