project_export_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format, the need for a selection, mandatory user notification about save location, folder placement restrictions, and overwrite behavior ('refused by default'). It covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 concise and well-structured: opening purpose, then prerequisites, then mandatory usage rules, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the most important operational guidance (tell user about save location) is prominently highlighted.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, key side effects (file creation, overwrite), and parameter semantics. It stops short of explaining the return value or what happens if no selection exists, but these are minor gaps for an export function.

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 0%, so the Args section must compensate. It clearly explains 'path: Absolute path for the exported .wav file' and 'overwrite: Set true to replace an existing file at that path - refused by default,' adding meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema types. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clear, specific verb+resource: 'Export only the current selection's audio (mono, 44.1kHz WAV).' It identifies the exact output format and distinguishes this selection-export operation from sibling project-level exports like project_export_audio by using 'only the current selection's audio.'

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?

It explicitly instructs the prerequisite: 'Select a time range first with select_region or select_all.' This gives clear context for when to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the 'only...selection' phrasing implicitly differentiates from whole-project export.

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