ghostrigger_export_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool writes an FBX to a local filesystem path, calls another tool (ghostrigger_open_model), and returns a structured JSON success/error payload. It doesn't mention overwrite or prerequisite behavior, but the core side effect and result format are clear.

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 well-organized with clear sections (summary, pipeline, Args, Returns, KB, Example) and front-loaded purpose. It earns its length. The example contains a contradictory export_path ('/Game/MCP_Test/Example' is a UE path, not an absolute filesystem path), which slightly mars an otherwise tight structure.

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?

The description covers purpose, all parameters, return format, and pipeline linkage, which is strong for a 4-param tool with no annotations. The main gaps are lack of explicit overwrite/prerequisite behavior and the misleading example path, which could cause an agent to pass an invalid export path. These are minor but real.

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 fully, and it does. The Args section explains resref, export_path, module_dir, and format with concrete examples, defaults, and allowed values, adding meaning far beyond the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Export a KotOR MDL model to FBX (or another format) via GhostRigger.' It also names the pipeline position and distinguishes from the downstream import tools (import_static_mesh / import_skeletal_mesh), so an agent can clearly tell this is the export step, not an import or open step.

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 explicit pipeline context: 'This is the first half of the KotOR→UE5 pipeline' and lists the follow-up import tools. This tells the agent when to use it in a workflow. It does not enumerate when not to use it or compare with ghostrigger_open_model, but the pipeline framing is sufficient guidance.

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