blender_export_gltf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose effects on the Blender scene, whether the export overwrites files, whether it is a non-destructive read operation, or whether export failures can leave partial files. For a file-export operation this is a meaningful 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?

One short, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and readable, though it sacrifices a little useful behavioral detail for brevity.

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 5-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It identifies the core operation and the selected-only behavior, but lacks guidance on when to choose it over sibling exporters, file overwrite behavior, and what the tool returns or reports after exporting.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'scene or selected objects', which maps to the selected_only parameter concept, but it does not explain the differences between GLTF_SEPARATE and GLTF_EMBEDDED or the consequences of disabling materials/animations. It does not go beyond schema descriptions in any significant way.

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 specific verb ('Export') and resource ('scene or selected objects') with a clear target format ('glTF/GLB'). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools (FBX, OBJ, STL, USD) and import tools.

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 communicates its core use case (exporting to glTF/GLB) but does not explicitly tell when to prefer it over sibling exporters like blender_export_fbx, blender_export_obj, or blender_export_usd. The context is implied by the format name, not stated.

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