blender_export_character_glb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context about the tool's scope ('one armature and its bound meshes' and 'optimized game-ready') but does not explain behavioral traits such as whether dry_run actually writes a file, whether existing files are overwritten, or what occurs when armature_name is null. The description mentions 'Plan or export' but leaves the dry-run behavior vague.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Plan or export') and specifies the resource ('one armature and its bound meshes'). There is no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the behavior of 'Plan' mode, what 'optimized' means in practice, whether animations are included by default, or what the tool returns after execution. This is insufficient for an AI agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional clarification.

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 only 25% (only filepath has a description). The description adds some meaning for armature_name ('one armature') and hints at dry_run ('Plan or export'), but it does not clarify include_animations or the exact role of dry_run. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly, but it does not.

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 function: 'Plan or export one armature and its bound meshes as an optimized game-ready GLB.' This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from siblings like import, validate, or normalize. The word 'export' and 'GLB' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like blender_validate_character or blender_normalize_character. It implies usage through 'Plan or export' but lacks clear context for selecting this tool over others, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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