blender_export_stl

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

Annotations state idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it warns about non-manifold edges, clarifies the bundling behavior when no object args are given, and explains the path resolution quirk relative to Blender's install directory. This goes beyond the bare annotations without contradicting them.

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 paragraphs totaling four sentences. Each sentence contributes important information: purpose, warning, default vs. specific behavior, and path resolution. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (four parameters, path ambiguity), the description covers the key decision points: how to choose between all meshes vs. a single object vs. a bundle, and the cwd caveat. It does not detail return values, but an output schema exists which likely covers that. Slight gap: no mention of binary format or overwrite behavior, but these are minor given the output schema.

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. It does explain the meaning and interplay of object_name and object_names ('Use object_name for one part, object_names=[...] for a specific bundle') and the default all-mesh behavior. However, it does not elaborate on the 'path' parameter beyond relative path resolution, and the 'binary' boolean is left entirely unexplained.

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 tool's action: 'Export mesh(es) to a single STL for 3D printing.' It names the specific verb, resource (mesh), and output format, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_import_stl (import vs export) and render 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?

The description explains default behavior with no object arguments ('exports ALL mesh objects bundled into one STL') and how to select specific objects via object_name or object_names. It also notes that relative paths resolve against the MCP server's cwd, which is critical usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast against alternatives or give 'when not to use' guidance.

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