ap_export_mesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It genuinely adds value by revealing that '.obj' is automatically appended and that the caller must pass a path without the extension. It does not address overwrite or return behavior, but the most important call-affecting trait is exposed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed immediately by the single critical usage warning. There is no filler or 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 one-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the output format and the most important input constraint. Minor details like overwrite behavior or return status are absent, but they are not needed to make a correct call.

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 already documents the path semantics well: destination path without extension, absolute path, forward slashes, and automatic backslash conversion. The description adds little beyond restating the extension caveat, so a baseline score is appropriate given 100% 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'), a specific resource ('paint geometry'), and a specific output format ('Wavefront OBJ'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like ap_export_textures and ap_export_material.

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 resource and format make the intended use reasonably clear, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of other export-related siblings, nor does it offer exclusions or alternative routes.

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