resolve_quick_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not reveal any side effects, such as whether the render is asynchronous, whether it blocks, whether it overwrites files, or if specific permissions or a loaded timeline are required. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for a render operation.

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 concise and front-loaded: the primary purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a brief list of common presets and an Args block. There is no fluff, and every sentence contributes to understanding how to use the tool.

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?

The description covers the core action and parameter semantics, and an output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., a loaded timeline), potential side effects, or whether the render is synchronous. Given the tool's complexity (rendering) and lack of annotations, a bit more context would be beneficial.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description itself includes an 'Args' section explaining each parameter: preset, output_dir, and filename, including defaults. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definitions, making the parameters self-explanatory. It is clear and directly useful for an agent.

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 purpose: 'Render the current timeline using a Quick Export preset.' It specifies the verb (render), resource (current timeline), and method (Quick Export preset), and lists common presets to make the scope concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like resolve_render_for_youtube or resolve_export_timeline, which could confuse an agent selecting among rendering tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like resolve_render_for_youtube and resolve_export_timeline exist, but the description does not mention any selection criteria, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and preset list.

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