maya_unreal_export_fbx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses export settings (smoothing groups, tangents), exclusions (subdivision results, unnecessary upstream connections, cameras, lights), and fallback behavior for the objects parameter (selection → all meshes). It could mention overwrite behavior or return values, but overall it is informative.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, a concise behavioral note, a prerequisite, and a clean Args list. Each parameter explanation earns its place, with no fluff despite the large number of parameters.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, prerequisite steps, export behavior, and parameter-specific advice, making it fully actionable for an agent without needing additional context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters in detail: path with example, objects fallback logic, triangulate rationale, skins when needed, blendshapes, animation, and up_axis options with Unreal conversion context.

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 exports FBX with Unreal-specific settings, listing exactly what is enabled (smoothing groups, tangents) and excluded (subdivision results, cameras, lights). This distinguishes it from siblings like maya_unreal_import_fbx and maya_unreal_prepare.

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?

Explicitly instructs to run maya_unreal_prepare before exporting, establishing a clear prerequisite. Parameter guidance (e.g., leave triangulate False for quads, enable skins for skeletal meshes) provides practical usage context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives beyond the prerequisite.

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