run_export

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully adds that the export 'may overwrite files on disk.' It also discloses that the operation is asynchronous by default and that progress is visible in Hiero's export queue, which is valuable behavioral context 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by focused notes on track_items, export_root, and asynchronous behavior. Every sentence adds actionable information without repetition or 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?

Annotations cover safety signals and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, for a six-parameter export operation with 0% schema description coverage, it leaves gaps around project/sequence defaults and how to obtain a valid preset name, making it only adequately complete.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning and it partially does: it gives a track_items example, explains that export_root overrides the preset root for this run only, and implies the synchronous option via 'Asynchronous by default.' However, it leaves project, sequence defaults, preset discovery, and the track_items item semantics underexplained.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: exporting a sequence or selected shots using a named export preset. It is distinguishable from sibling listing tools like list_export_presets, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with siblings.

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 usage context is implied by 'Export a sequence, or selected shots, with a named export preset,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus list_export_presets or other sequence tools. It also does not state when to prefer synchronous mode over the default asynchronous behavior.

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