Export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's added value is the disclosure that an enabled export-options dialog is auto-confirmed and that output paths are returned only when wait is true. That is genuine behavioral context, but it omits other mutation-relevant traits such as whether existing output files are overwritten or what happens when no segments are selected.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the dialog side effect, then the return behavior. No filler and no repetition.

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 two-parameter, non-open-world export tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effect, and the return condition. Remaining gaps (failure behavior, overwrite semantics, no-selection case) are modest but real for a write operation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the timeout bounds. The description restates the wait/return-paths relationship already present in the schema and says nothing about timeoutSeconds, so it adds little beyond the structured fields; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Exports the selected segments of the open file') plus the settings source ('current LosslessCut export settings'), so the agent knows exactly what action occurs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as wait_for_export, though the 'wait' mention hints at the relationship.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'selected segments' signals that a selection must exist first, and the wait parameter hints at an async alternative. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for non-blocking polling.

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