Export clips

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses an important non-obvious trait: the returned URL requires the same Authorization header as the server, plus the return shape ({ url, clips, notRendered }) in the absence of an output schema. It still omits whether the export is synchronous or how rendering gaps should be handled.

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 with zero filler: the first gives the payload and its contents, the second gives the return shape and the auth caveat. Information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

For a two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what the download contains, the response fields, and the auth requirement for the link. Minor gaps remain around failure/partial-render behavior, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 both id and clipIds are already fully documented (including the max 200 and 'must be rendered clips' constraints). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and output: a zip download link of the project's rendered clips bundled with YouTube/TikTok metadata. No sibling tool does export/download, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from create_project, rerender_clips, or get_project.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., clips must be rendered first), and no mention of what happens when nothing is rendered. Usage is only weakly implied by the noun phrase 'rendered clips'.

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