io-export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that format can be inferred from the output path and that either the scene or selected objects are exported. However, it does not disclose side effects such as file overwriting, required directory permissions, or what happens when the destination already exists.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence. Every word adds value: the verb, the resource scope, and the critical format-inference behavior. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description and schema together are enough for a straightforward export call, but the description alone does not explain file-overwriting behavior, return type, or typical workflows. It is adequate for basic use but lacks the deeper contextual insurance expected for a file-writing tool.

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 compensate. It does help by linking 'path' to format inference and by clarifying that the export scope may be the whole scene or selected objects, which indirectly maps to the 'objects' parameter. It does not provide detail for 'y_up', 'apply_modifiers', or the exact formatting of the objects parameter, relying mostly on schema titles.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Export the scene or selected objects.' It also adds a meaningful scope distinction from siblings like io-import by stating that the format can be inferred from the path, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description clearly indicates when to use it for exporting either the full scene or selected objects, and that no explicit format is needed when the path implies it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough relative to the io- and export-related siblings.

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