export_mesh_library

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations. It does not disclose whether the output file is overwritten, whether the scene must be part of an opened project, or any side effects during export. With annotations present (readOnlyHint=false), the agent knows it is a write operation, but the description offers no additional 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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is concise and free of unnecessary details, earning its place with no redundant information.

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 tool with full parameter documentation and annotation coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about the operation's behavior, such as what nodes become mesh items or overwrite rules, making it incomplete for optimizing agent selection and safe invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter fully. The description does not add parameter-level insights beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Export a scene as a MeshLibrary resource.' This uniquely identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_project or create_resource, which have different targets or formats.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or typical use cases mentioned. The description only states the action without contextual cues for selection.

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