export_godot_glb

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

The description adds that this is an alias, PBR-oriented, and supports optional compression, but it does not explain whether the export writes files, mutates scene state, respects selection, or what auto_cure does. Since annotations only provide destructiveHint=false and no readOnlyHint, the description carries too little behavioral context to fully inform an agent.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the key identity and compression option are front-loaded. It is concise to the point of being terse, but for pure conciseness and structure it works well.

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 four parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and only destructiveHint=false, this one-sentence description is insufficient for correctly invoking the tool. Missing details include what auto_cure does, how use_selection behaves, what the export returns, and how this alias differs operationally from godot_export_glb beyond compatibility.

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 four parameters. It only addresses the compression boolean with 'compresión opcional', while filepath, auto_cure, and use_selection remain entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 identifies the tool as an alias of godot_export_glb with PBR compatibility and optional compression, and the title calls it 'Export Godot GLB (high-level)'. It names the main sibling and the target engine, but it never directly states the core action, leaving 'alias' to carry the meaning.

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 use for PBR-compatible Godot/Redot GLB export, which weakly differentiates it from godot_export_glb. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no conditions for compression, and no mention of related tools like godot_check_material_compatibility or godot_batch_export.

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