export_obj

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Export to OBJ format' and lists parameters. It does not reveal potential side effects such as file overwriting, directory requirements, or whether the operation is destructive. There is no mention of what happens to existing files or whether an MTL is created alongside. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by parameter notes. It is not bloated, but it is also terse to the point of lacking substance. The structure is clear, but the brevity hurts its overall utility.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to explain key operational details: whether filepath is relative or absolute, whether the operation overwrites existing files, how selection affects the export, and what the output includes (e.g., textures, materials). An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional assumptions.

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?

The description provides brief explanations for each parameter: 'filepath: Output path', 'selected_only: Only export selected', 'export_materials: Include MTL file.' These add meaning beyond the schema, which has no descriptions. However, the explanations are minimal and lack details like file path format or the interaction between selected_only and scene contents. For 3 parameters, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 function: 'Export to OBJ format.' It names the specific format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_fbx and export_glb. However, it does not specify what is being exported (e.g., whole scene, selected objects), leaving the scope somewhat 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the existence of other export formats (FBX, GLB, generic export_file) or conditions for choosing OBJ. The description provides no decision-making context.

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