export_model

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds real context beyond them: the exact write path (workspace/mods/<mod name>/), the set of files emitted, the reported warnings (missing anchors, overlapping parts, pieces that may fall apart), and the default-preserving skeleton behavior ('keeps your edits'). It does not state what happens if the target mod folder already exists, which holds it back from a 5.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place, but the closing sentence ('Then write info.txt and spawn.txt (teardown_reference "mod_files")') is a dangling fragment that reads as a note about a follow-up step rather than this tool, muddying scope. The middle paragraph is dense but useful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does the work of characterizing returns by naming the generated files and the warnings emitted — good coverage for a mutation tool. It is nearly complete; the gaps are overwrite semantics for an existing mod folder and clarity on whether info.txt/spawn.txt are produced here.

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 100%, so all three parameters including the skeleton enum and mod_name default are already documented. The description only echoes 'XML skeleton' and the mod folder name; it adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Export the model as a mod folder' — and enumerates exactly what the tool produces (.vox, manifest JSON, XML skeleton). An agent can distinguish it from preview/inspect/slice_layers without opening the schema, since those do not emit a mod folder.

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?

Usage is implied as the final packaging step ('the user copies it into the game's mods folder') and it points at a related tool (teardown_reference 'mod_files'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or a named alternative such as preview or inspect. The reader must infer that this is the terminal packaging step.

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