Validate Project For Export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It does add useful context about what the audit reports and that no export is queued, but the behavioral disclosure beyond annotations is modest. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the checks in an organized way. Every clause adds information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 validation/audit tool with full parameter documentation, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description provides sufficient context. It names the target resource, describes the scope of checks, and explicitly clarifies the non-export behavior, so an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds high-level alignment with some parameters (preset paths, output paths, optional gaps), but it does not go beyond the schema in meaningfully clarifying parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Run a non-mutating export readiness audit') and a resource ('an active or named sequence'), and it clearly lists what the tool reports. It is readily distinguishable from export-related siblings because it explicitly emphasizes readiness checking and that no export is queued.

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 context for when to use the tool: before exporting, to check if a sequence is ready. It also communicates what it does not do ('without queuing an export'), which helps avoid confusion with export_sequence or add_to_render_queue. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as validate_export_preset or inspect_edit_readiness.

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