validate_project_for_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key non-destructive behavior and enumerates the checks, but it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a report, list of issues, status) or how errors are handled. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's output or failure modes, which is a notable gap for a pre-export gate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists checks. It is clear and free of fluff. While it is slightly dense with the list, it remains well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the purpose and checks but omits critical execution context: it does not describe the return value or format (essential since there is no output schema), nor does it mention error conditions (e.g., missing sequence, project closed). An agent cannot reliably interpret the audit result or handle failures, making it incomplete for a tool with 5 optional parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal extra value by referencing 'missing export preset/output folder inputs' and 'gaps' which map to presetPath, outputPath, and checkGaps, but it does not elaborate beyond the schema. It meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 and unique purpose: 'Runs a non-destructive export readiness audit' for a sequence, and explicitly lists the checks performed (timeline content, offline media, preset/output inputs, gaps, markers, track state). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like export_sequence or check_offline_media, which handle individual concerns or actual exports.

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 explicitly gives the trigger context: 'before an agent queues an export.' This tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if only checking offline media, use check_offline_media). Still, the usage timing is clearly defined.

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