Export model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that output is written to disk (a mutation) but says nothing about overwrite behavior, required permissions, failure modes, or whether the project state is modified. For a disk-writing tool this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences: the action is front-loaded and the format list is compact and information-dense. Nothing is wasted.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter documentation for a tool that writes files to disk. An agent still lacks overwrite semantics, error behavior, and whether a return value (e.g., written path) exists.

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 coverage is only 33% — only `options` is documented. The description partially compensates by enumerating valid `format` values (which are not constrained by an enum in the schema), but `path` semantics (extension, relative vs absolute, overwrite) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (compile/write) and resource (the project/model) and names the destination (disk). The enumerated format list makes the tool's output scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from bb_save_project and bb_export_texture.

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 format list implies when this tool applies (converting the project to an external representation), but the description never says when to prefer it over bb_save_project or what preconditions exist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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