export_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool writes a file, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files, required permissions, rendering time) or any other behavioral traits beyond the obvious write operation.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and the main verb and resource are front-loaded. The second sentence adds emphasis and sibling differentiation without unnecessary fluff, so every word earns its place.

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?

Given the well-described schema (100% parameter coverage) and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the tool's purpose and gives a key distinguishing detail. However, it does not mention potential caveats like file overwriting or when this step should be invoked in a pipeline, but those are partly covered under other dimensions.

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 baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides; it does not explain how fps, codec, bitrate, clip_id, or output_path should be used or constrained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('a clip') with a clear destination ('to disk'), and the emphatic 'THIS is the step that writes a file' differentiates it from sibling tools that may perform other operations. It clearly states the tool's primary function.

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 usage as the file-writing/export step, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., extract_audio, save_frame). There are no stated exclusions or conditions, so it only implicitly answers 'when to use this.'

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