android_gallery_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious side effect: it triggers the MediaStore scanner so the file appears in Google Photos/Gallery. It still omits permission/scoped-storage requirements, whether the source is copied or moved, and overwrite behavior on name collisions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the destination, and the observable effect with no filler.

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 simple 2-param, 1-required tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, destination, and post-condition adequately. Only operational details (permissions, copy vs move, failure handling) are missing.

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 100% (both params documented), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about videoFilePath format/constraints or how customTitle affects the gallery entry, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (exports) plus resource (video file) plus destination (Android DCIM folder), and it distinguishes itself from the edge_* video-creation siblings by being the export/publish step. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 destination ('Android DCIM') implies the use case, but the description never states when to call this versus the sibling tools or what precondition must hold (e.g. a completed render). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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