godot_export_glb

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

Annotations only contribute destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well. It lays out the exact three-step pipeline (cure_scene operations, godot_validate_scene, then bpy.ops.export_scene.gltf), warns about artifacts when auto_cure=false, and states the return shape. It also discloses the geometry-affecting cure steps on targets, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs beyond a safe-read hint.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, uses a compact numbered pipeline, and separates the Args section into a scannable list. The '0.1mm at 1 unit=1m' clarification earns its place; there is no filler or repeated schema noise.

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 10-parameter export tool with no output schema, it covers the invocation-relevant pipeline, required filepath, key defaults, and return fields. It is slightly incomplete because optional parameters like use_visible vs use_selection and the exact meaning of validation/cure_report are not detailed, but an agent can safely call it with just filepath using the documented defaults.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section supplies real semantics for filepath (absolute-path examples), export_format (allowed values and GLB recommendation), use_selection, auto_cure, and cure_merge_distance. However, five parameters — export_yup, use_visible, export_apply, export_animations, and cure_recalc_outside — are left undocumented, so compensation is substantial but incomplete.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Export to glTF 2.0 (.glb) for Godot 4.x with automatic curing before export.' This is unambiguous about what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling export_godot_glb or clarify its relationship to godot_batch_export, so it misses the full differentiation bar.

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 clear operational guidance: auto_cure=true is the default and recommended path, raw export is 'not recommended' and why, GLB is recommended over other formats, and use_selection changes the export scope. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or saying when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for the common single-file Godot export case.

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