export_fbx

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 an excellent job: it discloses side effects ('May change scene or write files'), instructs verification of output and state, and explicitly warns that a timed-out operation is UNKNOWN and must be reconciled before retry. This goes well beyond the schema.

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?

Four terse, purposeful sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: precondition, option guidance, side-effect warning, verification step, and timeout handling. No filler.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full calling context: required path condition, option sourcing, side effects, post-operation verification, and failure semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 add meaning. It does: 'path' must be a new absolute path, and 'options' should be selected from runtime ExportFBXOption fields. It compensates meaningfully, though it does not enumerate the option fields.

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 opens with 'Export FBX', a specific verb and clear resource, and clarifies that it exports with 'explicit runtime options'. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like export_obj or export_project for differentiation, so it misses the full 5.

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?

It gives concrete preconditions: requires a new absolute path, and advises inspecting runtime ExportFBXOption fields before choosing options. It does not state when to prefer an alternative tool, but the context for correct usage is clear.

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