export_for_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: copying the object, applying modifiers, triangulating, scaling, and exporting while leaving the original untouched. However, it does not clarify whether the copy is temporary or persists, whether it affects scene state, or what happens after export (e.g., cleanup), so some side effects remain opaque.

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 efficiently packs the entire workflow into a concise list of steps. It is not overly verbose and includes essential differentiators (original untouched, supported formats). Slight improvement could be made by adding a sentence on parameter usage, but as-is it is appropriately compact.

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 complexity of the operation (multiple steps, transformations, and export formats) and the lack of an output schema or parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of 'up' and 'forward' axes, the default behavior of triangulate/apply_modifiers, or any side effects on the Blender scene. This leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer or test.

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 zero description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation for any of the eight parameters. While names like 'objects', 'path', 'format', and 'scale' are self-explanatory, parameters such as 'up', 'forward', and the exact role of 'triangulate' and 'apply_modifiers' are not elaborated. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 a specific verb ('export') and resource ('game assets'), and outlines the exact processing pipeline (copy → apply modifiers → triangulate → scale → export). It also distinguishes itself by noting the original object is untouched, which differentiates it from generic export_file tools.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like export_file or import_file. There is no mention of scenarios where this specialized pipeline is beneficial or necessary, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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