Validate texture export settings and list the exact output files without writing them, so you can confirm preset, format, bit depth, size, texture sets, and destination before export.
Validate an export and list exact output files without writing them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | Yes | ||
| bit_depth | No | ||
| size_log2 | No | ||
| file_format | No | ||
| texture_sets | No | ||
| output_directory | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does carry the crucial safety disclosure that nothing is written to disk, which is the most important behavioral fact for a tool that could otherwise be mistaken for an exporter. It does not say what validation failures look like, whether the output directory must pre-exist, or how presets are resolved; an output schema covers return shape.
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?
A single tight sentence with the outcome and the non-destructive constraint front-loaded. No filler, nothing to trim.
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 six-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin. It never explains how the preset interacts with the optional overrides or what texture_sets scoping does, so an agent cannot confidently populate the schema even though the return shape is covered by an output schema.
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?
Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. preset, bit_depth, size_log2, file_format, texture_sets, and output_directory get no explanation of accepted values or interaction (e.g. how texture_sets narrows output), leaving the agent to guess entirely from bare type names.
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 (validate), a concrete outcome (list exact output files), and a key scope qualifier (without writing them). This implicitly separates it from export_textures and export_with_profile, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 phrase 'without writing them' implies a dry-run/preview step before a real export, but the description never states when to choose this over export_textures or plan_profile_export, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.