export_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Yet it only says 'renders and exports,' disclosing nothing about file-overwrite behavior, preset resolution rules, source-range handling, or mutation consequences. The schema carries behavioral hints (allowOverwrite defaults false, sourceRange never silently substituted), but the description itself adds no behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words. The core action is stated first and the purpose ('creating the final video') added as a clarifying second clause. Fully front-loaded and efficient.

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?

This is a complex operation with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, and the description gives only two sentences. It does not mention preset resolution ambiguity, the deprecation of enum parameters, overwrite defaults, or the meaning of removeOnCompletion. For a final-render tool, an agent needs far more context about expected behavior and failure modes than is provided.

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 the schema fully documents all 10 parameters, including deprecation notes on format/quality/resolution and the preset resolution requirements for presetName/presetPath. This earns the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states.

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-action ('Renders and exports a sequence to a video file') and identifies the resource (sequence) and target (video file). Adding 'This is for creating the final video' helps separate it from non-video exports like export_as_fcp_xml, export_aaf, and export_as_project. It does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast, but the video-file framing is enough to distinguish the core purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many export siblings (export_frame, export_as_fcp_xml, export_omf, encode_file, export_as_project). 'This is for creating the final video' only hints at a final-render condition and does not state exclusions or when alternatives should be chosen. The agent must infer routing from the verb alone.

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