exportPreviewVideo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the speed/quality trade-off ('quickly', 'fast low-resolution rendering'), which loosely matches the schema defaults, but it never discloses that this writes a file to outputPath, whether an existing file is overwritten, what dependencies are required (e.g. an open composition), or what is returned.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though it could carry one or two more clauses of genuinely useful behavioral detail without bloat.

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 file-producing export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The 8 parameters are fully documented in the schema, but the write side effects, overwrite semantics, and required context for a preview render are left unaddressed.

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 already documents all 8 parameters including defaults, enums, and time/frame alternatives. The description only echoes the frame-range concept ('frame A to frame B') and the low-res behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (export), resource (preview video), and scope (specific frame range with fast low-resolution rendering). The 'preview' framing implicitly contrasts with the single-frame exportFrame sibling, but it never names or explicitly differentiates from it, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and does not name exportFrame as the alternative for non-video frame exports. Usage can only be inferred from the word 'preview'; no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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