export_aaf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the high-level purpose but does not mention side effects like file overwriting, blocking behavior, permissions, or return values. For a file-creating operation, this leaves a significant transparency gap beyond what the schema alone implies.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the tool's core function in under 20 words, earning every word.

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 6-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential 'what' but omits 'what happens next' (e.g., success/failure reporting, file overwrite behavior, format constraints). It is adequate for understanding the tool's role, but not fully complete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it in a non-trivial workflow.

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 all six parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds the format context ('AAF file') but no additional detail about specific parameters like sampleRate, bitsPerSample, or explodeToMono, which the schema already describes. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Exports'), a specific resource ('a sequence'), a specific target format ('AAF file'), and the purpose ('interchange with other editing/audio applications'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_omf and export_as_fcp_xml, which target different formats.

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 implies the tool is used when AAF-format interchange is needed, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as export_omf or export_as_fcp_xml, nor does it state when not to use it. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, only an implied use case.

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