export_obj

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It warns that the operation 'may change scene or write files', prescribes verifying the resulting state, and explicitly states that a timed-out operation is UNKNOWN and must be reconciled before any retry. This is strong, honest risk communication.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. Every sentence adds actionable information: format details, path requirement, option inspection, side-effect warning, verification, and timeout handling.

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 file-export operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the high-risk aspects: side effects, path constraints, option selection, and timeout reconciliation. It does not describe the exact return shape or how to identify successful output beyond 'verify', but enough guidance is present for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema provides zero description coverage, and the description compensates meaningfully: it clarifies that 'path' must be a new absolute path and that 'options' should align with runtime ExportOBJOption fields. It does not enumerate all possible fields within the options object, but it gives enough direction for an agent to know how to populate the parameters.

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 OBJ' with explicit options, scale, axes, and object selection. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling export tools like export_fbx by specifying the OBJ format and its unique concerns.

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 preconditions and context: it requires a new absolute path, tells the agent to inspect runtime ExportOBJOption fields before choosing options, and instructs verification of the resulting state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the usage context is otherwise well defined.

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