export_fbx

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing that a NEW .casc copy is written first and that this changes scene identity, the exact-hash prerequisite for overwriting, scope rejection, and timeout recovery behavior (read files back). These are non-obvious side effects an agent must know before calling.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the identity-changing side effect stated early. The telegraphic fragments ('ASCII, Y-up, Euler filter') pack information efficiently, though the staccato style slightly reduces readability.

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 6-param nested-schema mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive copy step, overwrite protection, scope limits, and timeout handling. Return-value details are the only notable omission, and no output schema exists to cover them.

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 load, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: expected_sha256 for replacement, source_copy_path implied by the new .casc copy, and the frame-range restriction tied to options. It does not add syntax notes for scene_id/character_id, but those are self-evident identifiers.

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 (Export) plus resource and scope (complete single-character scene, baked skeleton/mesh/animation, native FbxLoader). It is the only export tool among the siblings, and the descriptor makes that unambiguous.

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?

Gives real usage conditions: full stored frame range only, new FBX by default vs. replacement requiring expected_sha256, and rejection of unsupported scopes. It does not point to the sibling get_fbx_export_status for polling status, so the alternative path is left implicit.

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