io_export_file

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this creates a file on disk, whether it respects the current selection, whether it overwrites existing files, or any conversion/export side effects. The format list is the only behavioral hint, which is insufficient.

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 very short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single format list does not earn its place as the sole description for a three-parameter export tool because it omits core usage information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell whether the export applies to the whole scene or selected objects, what the filepath should point to, what happens on overwrite, or how the format string must be provided. The format list is useful but not enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 add value for the 'format' parameter by enumerating accepted values (GLB, FBX, OBJ, STL, PLY, DAE, ABC, USD), but it gives no meaning for 'filepath' or 'use_selection', and does not specify exact accepted format strings, casing, or extension behavior.

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 only lists supported formats ('GLB, FBX, OBJ, STL, PLY, DAE, ABC, USD') and never states the action of exporting or the resource being exported. Combined with the tool name 'io_export_file' and title 'Export File (9 formats)', the purpose is inferable, but the description itself lacks a specific verb+resource and does not differentiate from export siblings like batch_export or godot_export_glb.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_export, export_godot_glb, or io_import_file. No context is given about whether it exports the whole scene, selected objects, or why one format would be preferred over another.

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