blender_export_obj

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does clearly convey the core operation and scope, but it omits details such as file overwrite behavior, coordinate/orientation conventions, or what happens when apply_modifiers is enabled beyond the schema. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the essential operation with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a relatively simple export tool.

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?

Given the large sibling set of export tools and the absence of annotations or an output schema, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent. It does not explain when OBJ is preferable, what side effects to expect, or how the tool behaves with existing files, leaving important context missing.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description's phrase 'scene or selected objects' lightly reinforces the selected_only parameter, but it does not add meaningful new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a resource ('scene or selected objects'), and the target format ('OBJ format'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling exporters like blender_export_gltf, blender_export_fbx, blender_export_stl, and blender_export_usd by naming the format explicitly.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose OBJ over the many sibling export formats, nor does it mention any alternative tools or conditions. An agent is left to infer that this tool should be used when OBJ output is desired, with no exclusions or fallback context.

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