export_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the output tree (index.md plus a structure.md per timeline), the default directory, that a previous export's files are replaced, and that unapplied edits are protected unless force is true. It still omits whether it mutates the document, permission/authentication needs, and what the call returns.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then outputs, then default path, then destructive-behavior caveat. The parenthetical format list is slightly compressed but nothing is wasted.

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 filesystem-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers destination, artifacts, and overwrite risk well. It is incomplete on the return value (does it report written paths?) and on the unexplained document parameter, both of which an agent would need.

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, and it does for two of three parameters: it documents the default for dir and the exact force semantics. The document parameter is never explained, and the phrase 'active Animate document' actually creates ambiguity about what the document argument does.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: export the active document's scene and library-symbol Timeline scripts to files, naming the concrete artifacts (index.md, per-timeline structure.md) and the formats AS3/HTML5 Canvas. It is clearly distinct from apply_scripts and edit_timeline by intent, but never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, nor a named alternative such as apply_scripts. Usage is only implied by the export framing and the overwrite guardrail (refuses to overwrite unapplied edits), which hints at a workflow without spelling it out.

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