export_edit

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description usefully adds what actually gets written: the exact filenames/extensions, their placement 'next to the version', what the timelines link, and what left_out omits (cover, crop, loudness, music ducking). It does not state whether existing files are overwritten, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Purpose and output artifacts are front-loaded, and every clause carries information. The middle sentence is dense with stacked parentheticals, costing a little readability, but there is no filler.

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 output schema, the description does the right work by enumerating the produced files, their locations, and the omitted features. The trigger condition is also given, leaving only overwrite behavior and the exact return value unspecified.

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 both parameters (edit, session) are already fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal context ('made from its recipe') and no format or syntax details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (edit version as a timeline) and names the concrete target applications and file formats. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like render_edit, publish_edit, and open_in_app.

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 closing clause 'Only when the user asks for it' gives a clear trigger condition that prevents proactive invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. render_edit or open_in_app) or state when another tool should be preferred instead.

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