ap_export_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the general side effect (writes a .arm file) and the scope (active material), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories must exist, or what happens if no material is active.

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 names the action, the target, and the output format without any filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's low parameter complexity.

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?

The tool is simple, with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, so the core invocation is clear. However, the absence of sibling differentiation and behavioral details like overwrite behavior leaves an agent with gaps when deciding between this and related material-export tools.

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 covers the single 'path' parameter fully with clear destination, format, absolute path, and slash-conversion details. The description adds little beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('the active material'), and a concrete output ('a reusable .arm material file'). It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ap_export_material_bake or ap_export_textures, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 given about when to choose this tool over ap_export_material_bake, ap_export_textures, or ap_material_save-related alternatives. The phrase 'active material' implies the precondition that a material is active, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use reasoning is provided.

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