export_sequence

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, yet it only alludes to the AME dependency. It doesn't say whether the call blocks until rendering finishes, returns a job handle, overwrites an existing file at outputPath, or what happens if AME is unavailable – all critical for a long-running export operation.

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 zero filler, but it is arguably too terse for a five-parameter export operation – conciseness is good, completeness is not.

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 mutation/export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain the return value (job, file, or path), whether the call is synchronous, and the AME dependency semantics. None of that is present, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 all five parameters (outputPath, presetPath, startTime, endTime, useInOut) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing beyond them. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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/render'), a specific resource ('the active sequence'), and the rendering engine ('Adobe Media Encoder'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate itself from sibling export tools such as export_direct, render_sequence_preview, or the XML/AAF/EDL exporters, which an agent must infer on its own.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus export_direct, render_sequence_preview, or the other export_* siblings, and no mention of prerequisites such as AME being installed/running or presets coming from get_encoder_presets. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'active sequence'.

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