export_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses side effects: writing files to disk, temporarily overriding a ROP output parameter and restoring it, writing per-frame files, leaving the playbar unchanged, and the meaning of success via 'wrote_files'. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a mutating tool.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then methodically covers node-type behavior, return semantics, frame behavior, and arguments. Every sentence contributes necessary information; nothing is redundant or filler. It is dense but well structured.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical operational details: what gets written, side effects, restoration behavior, per-frame output naming, and success semantics. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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. It explains node_path as the node to export, file_path as the destination and ROP override, and frame_range as [start, end] or [start, end, step]. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types and names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export a node's output to a file on disk.' It then clarifies the three node-type variants (SOP, LOP, ROP), which clearly distinguishes this from file-import, save-scene, and cache-writing siblings. An agent can grasp exactly what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 gives clear situational context by explaining how behavior differs for SOPs, LOPs, and /out ROPs, and notes the effect of frame_range. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use this,' but the contextual detail is strong enough to guide selection. A small deduction for not stating exclusions or calling out a sibling alternative.

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