export_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses that .abc bakes water and piece motion per frame, that bake_physics bakes piece physics to keyframes irreversibly, and that smoke/volume is not exported in any format. These are non-obvious side effects and limits an agent needs to know.

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 reasonably short and front-loads the supported formats in the first sentence. However, there is some redundancy between the English '.abc also carries the animated water surface' and the Korean sentence restating that water and piece motion are baked, and the second sentence partly repeats the first.

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 tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description covers the important behavioral nuances, irreversible baking, and the smoke limitation. The main gap is the undocumented names parameter, but because names is optional and the output schema exists, the definition is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains bake_physics and implies that the path extension selects the format, but it does not explain the optional names parameter at all. The required path is intuitive, but one of the three parameters remains semantically opaque.

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'), the resource (scene/model), and concrete target formats (glb/gltf/fbx/obj, .abc). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like import_model or render_video by focusing on file-format export.

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 gives clear conditions for choosing .abc when animated water surface or baked piece motion is needed, warns that bake_physics is irreversible and recommends snapshot first, and explicitly states that smoke/volume is never exported. It does not name alternative sibling tools for those exclusions, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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