export_fbx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool writes a file to the given path, whether it overwrites existing files, whether it exports the whole scene or only visible objects, or what side effects may occur. The phrase 'with common settings' is too vague to qualify as meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 compact and well structured: one clear purpose line followed by a concise parameter list. Every line earns its place, and the format and parameters are front-loaded.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple export call because all parameters are documented and the required parameter is identifiable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral expectations like file overwriting, return value, and how the export interacts with scene selection or visibility.

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 description must carry parameter documentation, and it does. It explains all five parameters and provides explicit allowed values for mesh_smooth_type and path_mode, adding real semantic value beyond the schema. The parameter explanations are terse but sufficient for an agent to fill in arguments.

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 clearly states the action ('Export') and the specific resource/format ('FBX format'), which distinguishes it from sibling exporters like export_glb and export_obj. It also signals scope by mentioning 'common settings' rather than leaving the tool's effect ambiguous.

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 the tool should be used when the target output format is FBX, which is enough for a basic agent. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over export_glb, export_obj, or export_file, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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