export_obj

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses almost nothing. It says 'to OBJ-like text' while the schema has a 'path' parameter, leaving ambiguous whether it writes a file, returns a string, or both. Permissions, failure modes, and side effects are unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is efficient. However the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than true conciseness, since essential detail 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It leaves the format semantics, destination behavior, and parameter meanings unresolved for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for both parameters and the description compensates for neither. It never explains what 'path' means (file vs directory) or what 'entity_ids' accepts, and with zero required parameters it doesn't clarify the default scope.

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 (export) and resource (entities to OBJ format), and the format name distinguishes it from siblings like export_step and export_stl. The qualifier 'OBJ-like' is slightly imprecise, but an agent can still tell it apart from other export tools.

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 and no mention of alternatives among the many export siblings (export_step, export_iges, export_stl, export_gltf). The agent is left to infer that this is for OBJ output purely from the name.

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