export_aaf

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Exports...' without mentioning whether the output file is overwritten, whether the operation is asynchronous, what happens on failure, or if the AAF embeds media or references external files. This leaves the agent without critical safety or side-effect information.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object, contains zero filler, and communicates the core purpose efficiently. It earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description alone is somewhat thin for a 6-parameter export tool. However, the schema covers all parameters, and the core purpose is clear. Missing details like output behavior or return values reduce completeness, but the description is minimally viable.

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% for all 6 parameters, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the file's purpose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Exports a sequence as an AAF file for interchange with other editing/audio applications' uses a specific verb (Exports), identifies the resource (sequence), and names the output format (AAF). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_omf or export_as_fcp_xml by targeting AAF interchange specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., export_omf or export_as_fcp_xml). It does not mention prerequisites, compatibility considerations, or exclusions. The context implies interchange use but offers no decision-making support for an agent choosing among export formats.

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