validate_project_for_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the tool is non-destructive and enumerates what it checks. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it stops short of detailing return type or error behavior, which would be useful for agents.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence gives the core purpose, and the second efficiently lists the audit categories. Every syllable earns its place.

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 provides a solid overview of scope and checks, but does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, list of issues, or throws errors). Since there is no output schema, this omission is a notable gap for agents to interpret results. Otherwise, it is reasonably complete given the moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping outputPath/presetPath to 'missing export preset/output folder inputs' and sequenceId to 'active or requested sequence,' enriching the schema's semantic meaning beyond simple field descriptions.

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 defines the tool as a non-destructive export readiness audit, with a specific verb ('Runs') and resource (project/sequence). It lists concrete checks (timeline content, offline media, gaps, markers, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling export/encode tools by focusing on pre-flight validation.

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 explicitly states its usage context: 'before an agent queues an export.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is intuitive given the tool's name and sibling export functions.

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