Export render preset

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It discloses that the tool records a TOP to a file via TouchDesigner and documents expected codec/extension/fps for downstream playback, which adds value beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention overwrite behavior or whether starting a new export replaces an existing one, so the transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and preset list, then adding the recorder relationship and downstream documentation purpose. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 start/stop tool, the schema covers parameter requirements, and the description explains the recording mechanism, presets, and downstream documentation benefit. There is no output schema, so return values aren't expected, but the description doesn't mention whether the call blocks or signals completion; this minor gap is offset by the strong schema coverage.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the description need not explain parameters. The prose lists presets by name, but that only echoes the enum values without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter meaning.

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's function: start/stop a movie export using named VJ/editorial presets, listing specific presets and explicitly distinguishing it by reusing record_movie's Movie File Out TOP recorder. The verb-resource relationship is precise and scope is well-defined.

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 indicates this tool is a preset-driven wrapper around record_movie's recorder, offering clear context for when to use it (for named delivery presets). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusions, but the relationship to record_movie is implicitly a usage guideline.

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