blender_export_stl

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 discloses the scene-vs-selection scope, which is helpful, but it does not address file overwrite behavior, default values of the boolean options, what happens when export fails, whether the .stl extension is auto-appended, or how non-mesh objects are handled. For an export (write) operation, these are material gaps.

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 with zero filler. 'Export scene or selected objects to STL format' delivers the action and scope immediately, and the parenthetical '(for 3D printing)' earns its place by conveying the intended use case. Every word contributes.

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 file-export tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is exported, in what format, and the selected-only scope option. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could usefully state defaults or consequences (e.g., overwrites existing file, boolean defaults). The schema handles the parameters, but a bit more behavioral context would make this fully complete.

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 schema already documents all five parameters (filepath, ascii, scale, selected_only, apply_modifiers). Per the baseline rule, the description need not repeat parameter details. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but none is required given complete schema coverage.

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'), resource ('scene or selected objects'), and target format ('STL format'), with a use-case hint ('for 3D printing'). The format name alone distinguishes it from sibling exporters (blender_export_gltf, blender_export_fbx, blender_export_obj, blender_export_usd) without needing to open the 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 '(for 3D printing)' hint implies when STL is the right format, which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternative exporters (e.g., 'use glTF for textured web models' or 'use OBJ for interchange'). The agent must infer the right format choice from context alone.

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