export_timeline

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-ish nature is partly covered; the description adds that output is source-linked (references media rather than embedding) and that fidelity is limited for effects and motion graphics, which is real disclosure beyond the annotations. It does not state that a file is written to outputPath, whether an existing file is overwritten, or what the returned limitations look like.

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 action and output format, then the contents, then the caveat. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-shape information, and it only gestures at 'returned fidelity limitations' without describing the structure. For a 4-parameter mutation-ish tool with a file-writing side effect, the essentials (output location behaviour, atomicity) are under-specified, though nothing critical is missing to pick the tool.

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?

Input schema covers 50% of parameters: expectedRevision and projectDir are documented, while format and outputPath are not. The description names OpenTimelineIO, implicitly confirming the format value, but adds nothing about what outputPath accepts, whether files are overwritten, or what happens on a revision mismatch. It does not compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'Export a source-linked OpenTimelineIO timeline for compatible editors.' The OTIO format constraint plus the note that it contains editable cuts, gaps, overlaps and audio timing makes it distinguishable from export_render and project_bundle, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied by 'for compatible editors' — an agent can infer this is the hand-off path to an NLE rather than a rendered file, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs export_render or when-not guidance. The closing instruction to read returned fidelity limitations is useful post-call guidance but not selection guidance.

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