validate_export_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Validate' implies a read-only pre-flight check with no side effects, and the enumerated checks are useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure (error vs. warning list) or whether any checks have side effects, leaving behavior partly unspecified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, leading with the verb and the full list of validated aspects. Nothing could be trimmed without losing substance.

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?

Parameters are fully documented in the schema, but with no output schema the description never indicates the return shape (pass/fail, warning list, error details). For a validation tool whose primary value is its result, that omission is a meaningful gap.

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 parameters such as output_path, preset_path, work_area, and export_mode are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of output path and preset existence loosely maps to those fields but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Validate') and enumerates exactly what is checked: output path, .epr preset existence, overwrite hazards, and sequence readiness. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export_active_sequence, which actually performs the export.

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 phrase 'before starting an export' establishes clear timing context for when to call it. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when-not to use it, but the pre-flight framing is unambiguous.

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