screenstudio_export_variants

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses a rich set of behaviors: rendering is serialized in Screen Studio, a progress notification fires per target, renders past renderTimeoutMs are cancelled, a second call for the same project/outputDir is refused while one runs, files never overwrite, and the editor state is left unchanged. It also details the mapping of aspect, padding, caption and zoom behavior per target.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded well, but the body is one very long paragraph dense with nested parentheticals, which makes it hard to scan for a single parameter or behavior. Much of the content earns its place, but the structure fights comprehension rather than aiding it.

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 10-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and 30% schema coverage, the description is thorough: it covers inputs, per-target behavior, side effects, naming/outputs, timeout/concurrency limits, and even summarizes the return (files, warnings, notes). An agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

With only 30% schema coverage across 10 params, the description compensates well: it expands each target with its aspect/resolution/fps, explains baseName's naming pattern ('<baseName>-<target>.<ext>'), what kit adds by default (poster PNG, .srt/.vtt, chapters, manifest, contact sheet), the chapter ordering rules (first at 0:00, ≥10s apart), and how recipe overrides frame rate and resolution. Only recipeOverrides is left unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render one edit for every place it goes, in one call,' and enumerates the exact seven targets with their resolutions and frame rates. An agent can tell this is the batch multi-variant exporter (versus the single-target screenstudio_export_start) without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one call' for 'every place it goes,' and it explains that recipe-supplied targets become the default. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names the alternative (e.g. export_start for a single target), and there is no explicit guidance on choosing between style/recipe combinations.

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