export_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether an existing file is overwritten, whether export mutates or reads the scene, whether permissions are needed, or what a successful export returns. For a file-writing operation this is a notable 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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. It is well-structured, though it could have used one more sentence for the missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 4-parameter file-export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits overwrite semantics, export scope (whole scene vs. selected objects), and any note on apply_modifiers. An agent can call it, but cannot predict its side effects.

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 75%, and the description adds zero parameter-level meaning beyond it — the format-target mapping and extension-picks-format behavior are already in the schema. Critically, apply_modifiers has no schema description at all and the description does not compensate for it.

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) and resource (models) and lists target destinations (game engines, web, AR, 3D printing), which is clearer than a bare tautology. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling export_skeletal, which an agent must choose between, so it stops short of a 5.

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 names output use cases but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions the alternative export_skeletal or import_model_file. An agent gets no routing logic for picking between the export tools.

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