export_aaf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about writing to disk, overwriting an existing file at outputPath, permissions, or what happens when no sequence is active. The only implicit trait is that it operates on whatever sequence is currently active.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, its brevity is under-specification rather than discipline, given what the schema demands.

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 5-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits parameter meaning, side effects, and failure conditions. The format/purpose line is useful but far from sufficient to call this reliably.

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% across five parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Required outputPath, sampleRate, mixdownAudio, bitsPerSample, and explodeToMono are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent no guidance on which to set or what values mean.

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 and resource (export the active sequence) plus the format (AAF) and target applications (Avid / Pro Tools), which meaningfully separates it from export_omf and export_fcp_xml. It stops short of a 5 only because it doesn't contrast itself explicitly with those siblings.

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 target-app hint ('for Avid / Pro Tools') loosely implies when this format is appropriate, but there is no explicit statement about when to choose AAF over export_omf, export_fcp_xml, or export_sequence, and no prerequisite conditions (e.g., an active sequence must exist).

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