Export walkthrough

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses a five-minute wait for narration still being voiced, an MP4 render cost of roughly a tenth of the length plus a few seconds, format-specific runtime dependencies (ffmpeg and Playwright Chromium for MP4, neither for HTML), and that the error message names what is missing. It does not contradict the write/non-idempotent annotation profile.

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?

Front-loads the outcome and the format choice, then the trigger, then the timing and dependency caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the dependency sentence is compressed into a single dense clause that is slightly harder to parse than the rest.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers what an agent needs: sequencing after finish_walkthrough, the wait/render timing so it does not time out prematurely, the failure/dependency story, and the format tradeoff. File placement and size handling are covered by the schema, so nothing material 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 path, format, handle and max_mb are already fully documented in the schema, including overwrite behavior and per-channel size limits. The description adds only a general note that MP4 needs extra runtimes, which is behavioral rather than parameter-level. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Save a walkthrough as one file') and immediately names the two output forms with their technical profiles (MP4 H.264/AAC with subtitle track; self-contained offline HTML). This is clearly distinguishable from finish_walkthrough, preview_slides and the other siblings, which produce the walkthrough rather than exporting it.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Call it after finish_walkthrough and the fixes its reply names') and an explicit triggering condition ('Use it when the user asks for a video, or for a file to share, send or attach'). An agent knows both when to call it and when it is premature.

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