validate_project_for_export

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

The term 'non-destructive' immediately signals that the tool does not mutate project state, which is valuable given the absence of readOnly/destructive annotations. It also enumerates checks performed, but does not detail return value or any potential side effects beyond that, so a small gap remains.

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 two sentences, efficiently covering the purpose and a comprehensive list of checks. It is well-structured and free of redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains the audit's scope and non-destructive nature. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a report, success/failure), which could be important for an agent to handle the outcome. This small omission prevents a perfect score.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all five parameters, including defaults and optionality. The tool description does not significantly add meaning beyond referencing 'active or requested sequence' and 'missing export preset/output folder inputs', which are already implied by the parameter names and schema. This aligns with the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool runs a non-destructive export readiness audit, specifying the action (audit) and the target (active or requested sequence). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on retrieval or modification, as it explicitly checks export-related conditions.

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?

Explicitly indicates usage 'before an agent queues an export', and describes what conditions it verifies (timeline content, offline media, missing inputs, gaps, markers, track state). This provides clear guidance on when to invoke this tool, even without directly contrasting with alternatives.

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