batch_export

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

Annotations provide only a title with no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that files are produced per mesh, but it does not disclose filesystem write effects, whether existing files are overwritten, what happens to non-mesh objects, or that it operates on the directory path from the schema.

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 one clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler—every word earns its place. It is slightly under-sized for a tool with three parameters and filesystem side effects, but as a concise statement of purpose it is well-structured.

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?

With 0% parameter coverage, a title-only annotation, and no output schema, this single sentence is the only documentation an agent receives. It is missing destination behavior, format support, selection semantics, overwrite side effects, and any guidance distinguishing it from sibling export tools—too thin for confident invocation.

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 the description does not compensate: directory, export_format, and only_selected are never explained beyond the vague hint of 'each MESH object as separate file'. An agent cannot learn the supported formats, the default destination, or what only_selected changes without external knowledge.

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 a specific verb (export), resource (MESH objects), and granularity (each as a separate file), which conveys the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling exporters such as godot_batch_export, io_export_file, or export_godot_glb, and it omits destination/format context that would sharpen the distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like io_export_file, godot_batch_export, batch_import, or batch_process_directory. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are given, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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