blender_export_model

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention side effects like file overwriting, whether a scene must be loaded first, or what happens with existing files. The description only restates the obvious export action, adding minimal value beyond annotations.

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 sentence, wastes no words, and clearly enumerates supported formats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys exactly what the tool does.

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 simple export tool, the description covers the basic functionality and formats, but omits details on return values (no output schema), filename/extension handling, and overwrite behavior. It does not mention the response_format parameter, leaving some gaps in what an agent might need to know for successful 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 description does not elaborate on any parameters. Schema coverage is 75%, with the path parameter lacking a description. The tool description neither mentions how to specify formats nor selection, leaving agents to infer from parameter names and their property descriptions. It adds no semantic value over the schema.

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 action 'Export', the resource 'scene', and enumerates accepted output formats (.glb, .gltf, .fbx, .obj, .stl, .ply, .usd, .abc, .blend). This distinguishes it from the sibling import tool and other scene manipulation tools. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 (export a scene when a model file is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like blender_import_model, nor any prerequisites such as requiring a selected object. It lacks any when-not or alternative routing.

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