screenstudio_export_start

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed world). The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: async job semantics ('Returns a job; poll status'), the source live/disk field in results, the no-overwrite guarantee with the delivery_failed + renderedPath failure shape, and the meaning of keepRender. These are substantive operational details beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the critical no-overwrite and polling facts. The height/aspect-ratio examples are somewhat verbose and partly restate the schema description, but every sentence carries usable information and nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well (job handle, poll status, source live/disk, delivery_failed + renderedPath). Missing pieces are minor: no mention of how long renders take or where output paths may be written.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains format (mp4/gif), height semantics (duplicating the schema's own height description), keepRender, and outputPath's no-overwrite consequence, but says nothing about fps or quality. Partial compensation for a sparse schema.

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: render the editor's current view (including unsaved edits) to a local MP4 or GIF. The 'live editor vs saved project' framing distinguishes it from a plain project export, though no sibling (e.g. export_frame, export_variants) is named explicitly.

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?

Implies usage ('including unsaved edits', 'without a save dialog') and says to poll status after starting a job, but never states when to prefer this over export_variants or export_frame, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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