export_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description does carry some behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: this is a blocking synchronous render that completes before returning, performed in Premiere rather than an external encoder. It omits other important behavior: whether an existing file at outputPath is overwritten, expected render duration/timeout risk for long sequences, and whether the project's active sequence or settings are mutated.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and the completion semantics front-loaded and the default preset follow-up where it belongs. Every sentence 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?

For a 4-parameter render tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and the default preset but leaves gaps an agent would care about: overwrite behavior at outputPath, how long it may block, and what is returned on success (path, job id, or nothing). Adequate, not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a fact absent from the schema: the default preset is 'H.264 Match Source - High bitrate', which materially affects the rendered output. That is a genuine value-add even if the remaining parameters are fully documented in 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 and resource ('Render the ... sequence to a file') plus a scope qualifier ('active (or named)'). It is clearly distinguishable from export_sequence_as_project, export_omf, export_frame and export_audio, though it never explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling, queue_export.

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 phrase 'wait until it is done' implies a use case (you need the file before continuing) which implicitly separates it from a queued/background export, but the description never names queue_export or states when to choose one over the other. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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