export_skeletal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose substantial behavior: output filename conventions, centimetre scale, leaf-bone stripping, root bone naming, and per-frame easing baking. It does not state side effects such as whether files are overwritten or whether a disk path must exist, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 front-loaded sentence uses a colon and semicolons to pack purpose, output artifacts, and export conventions with no filler. Every clause adds information an agent can act on.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the export result well but omits the semantics of fps, armature, and export_dir and says nothing about failure modes or return values. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 20% (just 'actions'), so the description must compensate across five parameters. It clarifies name and actions via the output naming pattern and mentions per-frame timing tied loosely to fps, but fps, armature, and export_dir carry no meaning in either the schema or the description.

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?

It states a specific verb (UE5 export) and a specific resource (a rigged prop), and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (SK_<name>.fbx skeletal mesh plus per-clip A_<name>_<action>.fbx). The 'skeletal/rigged' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling export_model, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 scope (UE5, rigged prop) implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative. The agent must infer that export_model is the non-rigged counterpart.

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