export_file

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, and it delivers little. 'Report whether it landed' hints that a success indicator is returned, but it never says what happens if the target file already exists, whether the format is inferred from the extension, what file types are supported, or whether the export blocks until a cook completes.

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?

One sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler, which is well suited to a simple three-parameter tool. The brevity is close to over-compression given what is left unsaid, but nothing in the wording is redundant.

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 file-writing mutation with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and an unexplained frame_range parameter, the description is too thin. An agent would not know whether the call overwrites existing files, how the format is chosen, or how to interpret the boolean-style result before 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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'A node's output' and 'a file on disk' loosely gesture at node_path and file_path, but frame_range has no explanation at all, leaving the agent to guess whether it takes a start/end pair, a list of frames, or what happens when it is null.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Export a node's output to a file on disk' names both the source (node output) and destination (file on disk), which separates it from siblings like import_file or export_chop_to_parm. It stops short of naming any alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not differentiating.

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 import_file, export_chop_to_parm, or other export paths, and no preconditions such as needing the node to be cooked or the directory to exist. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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