export_omf

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

Annotations provide basic safety hints (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond stating the export format. It does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (active sequence must exist), or file overwrite behavior.

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, clear sentence that delivers the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the action and output format.

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 the absence of an output schema and the presence of well-documented parameters in the schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or how the export interacts with the active sequence, making it incomplete for a complex export tool.

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%, so the schema adequately documents all 7 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool exports the active sequence as an OMF file, specifying the format (Open Media Framework) and its use case (audio post-production). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like export_aaf.

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 implies the tool is for audio post-production exports, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like export_aaf or export_sequence. No exclusions or situational guidance is provided.

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