convert_gltf_to_obj

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions a cost of 0.025 USDC, which is useful, but does not explain performance characteristics, limitations (e.g., texture support, complex scenes), or potential lossy transformations. It doesn't describe error handling or edge cases. The description mentions 'translates' which implies conversion but lacks further detail on behavior.

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 sentence that gets to the point, with the cost mentioned upfront. It is concise and not redundant, but could be slightly better structured by front-loading the purpose more clearly (the cost is an aside).

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 tool's moderate complexity (conversion), the description lacks details on input format, output, and the payment requirement integration. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it doesn't. The cost is mentioned but not how the payment is processed. With sibling tools like `validate_gltf_structure` and `optimize_3d_mesh`, more context would help.

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 description coverage is 100% for the two parameters, but both are generic: `payload` as a string and `paymentSignature`. The description adds almost nothing beyond the schema – it doesn't explain what the payload should contain (e.g., GLB binary data or path) or how to structure the JSON. A high coverage baseline would be 3, but here the generic nature of the parameters means the description should compensate – it doesn't. It only states the tool converts, not how to pass input.

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 conversion from 'GLTF/GLB scene buffer models' to 'Wavefront OBJ vertex and material (.mtl) streams', which distinguishes it from related tools like `optimize_3d_mesh` and `validate_gltf_structure`. It uses specific terms and names the target format, but could be more explicit about the output format details (e.g., whether it returns a file or text).

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 implies usage: when you have a GLTF/GLB and need OBJ for older CAD engines. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as `obj_mtl_to_glb_packer` for reverse conversion. It also doesn't mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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