export_frame

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work: it discloses that effects are rendered, that the frame is displayed, and that a PNG is written as a side effect. It does not cover overwrite behavior for existing files, permission/error conditions, or what happens when returnImage is false.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence about the PNG could arguably be merged, but it is informative rather than redundant.

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 four-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin on return behavior (what the image looks like when returnImage=false) and on failure modes. An agent could call it, but would be guessing at edge cases.

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%, including defaults for time, maxWidth, outputPath, and returnImage, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only echoes the PNG-save behavior tied to outputPath and adds no format or unit detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Render one frame of the active sequence') and adds the scope 'with all effects'. It is distinguishable from export_sequence/render_previews by being a single-frame preview, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clause 'so you can check how the edit looks' implies the inspection use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use and no routing to alternatives like render_previews or export_sequence. The dependency on an active sequence is implied only by the phrase 'active sequence'.

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