scene_export

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavior about format selection and exporter options, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, error conditions, or whether the target path must already exist.

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: it states the core action first, then format behavior, then parameter examples. Every clause contributes useful information without unnecessary repetition.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is nearly complete for a two-parameter export tool, but it leaves out overwrite semantics and a fuller definition of valid option keys, which would matter for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains that the output format is determined by the path extension and gives concrete examples of exporter flags accepted by options, covering both parameters with meaningful context, though the options list is not exhaustive.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Export the scene.' It also lists supported export formats, which makes the tool's role clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby tools like scene_save or material_export, relying on the reader to infer the distinction.

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 implies usage by explaining that the export format follows the file extension and that options are exporter flags. It does not state when to choose this tool over scene_save, material_export, or render_export_viewer, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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