blender_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the export operation and the need for a file path, but does not disclose side effects such as file overwriting, whether the export runs asynchronously as a job, or whether the Blender scene is modified.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the key action and output format are front-loaded before the parameter instruction.

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 one-parameter export tool, the description is minimally viable: it names the operation and the required input. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, it leaves practical gaps such as file extension behavior and whether export is a background job, which the sibling job tools suggest may be relevant.

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 compensate for the bare filepath property. It adds only that the filepath is the output destination, which is largely redundant with the property name, and it does not clarify extension conventions (.gltf vs .glb), path absoluteness, or directory requirements.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('the scene') and explicitly names the target format ('glTF/GLB'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling export tools like blender_export_obj and blender_export_fbx. An agent can immediately identify when this tool is the right one.

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 usage: choose this tool when the scene should be exported as glTF/GLB. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the sibling export tools (OBJ/FBX), nor any exclusions or context such as texture embedding or binary vs. JSON output.

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