postfader_delivery_export_manifest

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds a meaningful guarantee: it creates files without overwriting or saving the FL project. This clarifies the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint signals by scoping them to local files rather than the project. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 that conveys the core action and the key safety constraint. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description is adequate for basic invocation, and the output schema plus annotations fill gaps. However, it does not explain what a review session is, what 'delivery files' contain, or how output_directory behaves, which an agent may need when choosing this tool among many postfader siblings.

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% because the request property is described as 'Create-only JSON/Markdown delivery export options.' The main description adds little beyond that, and nested property semantics (review_session_id, output_directory, formats) are left to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 clear verb and resource ('Create local delivery files') and adds a distinguishing constraint ('without overwriting or saving the FL project'). It is reasonably distinct from render/save siblings, though it does not explicitly say 'delivery manifest' or reference the review session flow.

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 description gives a clear usage context: use this when you want local delivery files and do not want the FL project saved or overwritten. It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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