export_camera_clip

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

Annotations only mark destructiveHint; the description discloses the file-writing mutation, path confinement validation, credential requirement, no-op-until-confirm semantics, and the returned path/size. This goes well beyond the annotation and contradicts nothing.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and the prose is information-dense. The Args block duplicates schema content, which adds length, but the description remains structured and every distinct behavioral point 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?

With only destructiveHint true and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects, safety confirmation, path constraints, credentials, and result shape. It covers all of these, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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's Args section largely restates schema text. It adds a bit of prose context about output_path being confined and confirm gating the write, but no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action: exporting a UniFi Protect recording clip as an MP4 file written to disk. It distinguishes itself from still-image capture by naming get_camera_snapshot as the alternative, which separates it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use get_camera_snapshot when a single still image is needed instead of a time-ranged clip. It also states the credential prerequisite and the confirm requirement, giving clear context for when the operation will actually write.

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