export_gltf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a write operation to a file path, whether an existing file is overwritten, whether it fails when entity_ids is omitted, or any output/return behavior. Only the terse 'GLTF-like text' hints at the result format.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient concision, since essential information is simply absent.

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 an export tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. The agent has no information about where output goes, what gets exported by default, or how this differs from the adjacent export_* tools.

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% and neither parameter is named or explained. The word 'entities' loosely implies entity_ids, but 'path' (the file destination) and the optionality of both parameters are not addressed anywhere in the description.

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 specific verb (export) and target format (GLTF), so the agent knows the general operation. But 'GLTF-like text' is vague and it gives no differentiation from the many sibling exporters (export_obj, export_stl, export_3mf, export_step, export_dwg). An agent cannot tell from the text why it would pick GLTF over another export format.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the large set of sibling exporters, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether entities must exist or a path must be writable). The agent is left to infer everything about selection.

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