export_edl

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. It says what is exported but omits whether the output file is overwritten, what permissions are required, how errors are reported, or whether the tool modifies project state. For a file-writing mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral context.

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 simple export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves important context unstated: overwrite behavior, error handling, and how it differs from other export siblings. It is adequate but not complete.

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 both parameters (outputPath, trackIndex) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('active sequence as an EDL file'), making the operation clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling export tools (export_sequence, export_aaf, export_omf, export_final_cut_xml) beyond mentioning the EDL format, so an agent must infer the differences from the format name alone.

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 like export_sequence or export_aaf. The only implicit cue is 'active sequence,' but no exclusions or preconditions are given.

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