fbx_export_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it evaluates entitlement, Joint/Mesh scope and frame-range blockers, which is useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about what the response looks like or whether blockers are enumerated or a pass/fail flag. With annotations carrying the safety burden, 3 is appropriate.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the compression comes at the cost of readability: several noun-stacked clauses ('entitlement, exact single-character Joint/Mesh scope and whole stored-frame range blockers') make the subject matter harder to parse than a slightly longer plain sentence would.

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 status/pre-flight tool with no output schema, zero parameter documentation and no stated relationship to the actual export tools, the description leaves too much unspecified: what the result contains, how blockers are surfaced, and how to proceed after a blocker is reported.

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% and the single character_id parameter has no type-level documentation in the schema. The phrase 'exact single-character ... scope' hints at a character scope but does not clarify whether character_id is required for meaningful results, what happens when it is omitted (it is not in required), or whether multiple characters are rejected.

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 verb 'Read' plus 'export entitlement ... blockers' does signal a pre-flight readiness check, but the phrasing is dense internal jargon ('whole stored-frame range blockers') that an agent must decode. It never names the siblings it precedes (fbx_export, fbx_export_verified), so differentiation is only inferable from the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite or ordering guidance, and no mention of how it relates to fbx_export or fbx_export_verified. An agent must guess that this should be called before exporting.

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