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 burden. It only states the basic purpose and includes default values in the schema, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing files, whether it requires specific sequence states, or whether it affects the current project state). The description adds little beyond the schema's parameter defaults.

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 description is a single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key information. No wasted words.

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?

Given that this is a straightforward export tool with a complete schema (100% coverage) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what it does, but lacks details about potential prerequisites (e.g., must the sequence be open? what happens on failure?) and does not mention any limitations. It is complete for basic use but not thorough for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it doesn't compensate for anything but also doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the tool exports a sequence as an AAF file for interchange with other editing/audio applications. It identifies the verb (export), the resource (sequence), and the output format (AAF). It distinguishes from siblings like export_as_fcp_xml and export_omf because it specifically mentions AAF, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when needing AAF interchange) but does not explicitly contrast with similar export tools like export_omf or export_as_fcp_xml. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so it's adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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