export_active_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well on the critical safety facts: it is a write/export operation, it demands an explicit confirm_export=true, and it flags the destructive overwrite case via confirm_overwrite=true. It stops short of describing the asynchronous nature of ame_queue mode, permissions needed, or what is returned.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the core action and then the authorization constraints. No filler, though it could have used the second sentence to carry more differentiated behavioral detail instead of only confirmation gates.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the confirmation gates and preset mechanism are covered, but the asynchronous ame_queue behavior, the effect of start_ame_batch, and the result of the call are left to inference. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 every parameter including work_area, export_mode, preset_path, start_ame_batch, and the confirm flags is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the two confirmation flags, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (the active sequence) with a version qualifier (Premiere Pro 2019) and hints at the preset/format mechanism. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the export-related siblings (get_export_capabilities, validate_export_settings, get_export_status, cancel_export_when_supported), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied through the confirmation requirements ('requires explicit confirm_export=true'), which describe how to authorize the call rather than when to choose it over siblings or which export_mode to pick. There is no guidance on when to route through validate_export_settings first or when ame_queue is preferable to direct.

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