blender_export_obj

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 states the action but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, requires a loaded scene, creates directories, or has any side effects. For a mutation tool that writes a file, this is a significant gap beyond the basic action.

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 zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the required parameter is explicitly referenced. This is appropriately concise for a simple export tool.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (per signals), the description is minimally adequate but lacks contextual guidance for selecting it among siblings and does not detail side effects or prerequisites. An agent could call it, but a richer description would improve correct usage in varied scenarios.

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 mentions the filepath parameter ('Provide the output file path'), which aligns with the schema, but adds no meaning beyond that. It does not clarify path formats (absolute vs relative), allowed extensions, or overwrite behavior. The schema already had the parameter title, so the description provides minimal incremental value.

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 the scene as OBJ') with a specific resource (the scene) and format (OBJ). It distinguishes from sibling export tools (gltf, fbx) by explicitly naming the format, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use OBJ over the alternative export formats (gltf, fbx). It simply states the action without explaining the context, trade-offs, or exclusion criteria. An agent would have to infer the appropriate choice from the tool name alone.

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