export_multi

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors (per-target codec/size/loudness customization, reframe-awareness) but omits details like permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is synchronous. The 'one call' phrasing implies efficiency but lacks safety or mutability cues.

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?

Extremely concise at 10 words, front-loading the key value proposition. No wasted words. However, it sacrifices some necessary detail; a slightly longer description could enhance clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the core differentiator but lacks context on error handling, required scopes, or parameter constraints (e.g., valid target strings). It is adequate for simple use but insufficient for complex scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly hints at 'targets' via 'per target'. Parameters hw, targets, and project_id are not explained. The agent must infer types and defaults from the schema alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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's function: exporting multiple platform variants in one call. It uses specific verbs and nouns ('export', 'platform variants', 'codec/size/loudness') and distinguishes from siblings like export_edl or export_render by highlighting its batch nature.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies it's for generating all platform variants simultaneously, but does not mention alternatives or contexts where other export tools would be preferred. The agent receives little direction on selection among siblings.

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