batch_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects (e.g., file overwriting), required permissions, supported formats, directory creation behavior, or failure modes. The description is purely a high-level action with no behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short sentence, which is efficient in wording. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally useful, lacking any structure or additional context. While there is no redundancy, the brevity is not 'appropriate' given the tool's 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?

Given the tool's 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, plus its position among many sibling export tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain required parameters, formatting options, or how the tool behaves. An agent has virtually no context to decide if this tool is appropriate or how to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (format, directory, individual, object_names). Without any explanation of what these parameters mean, how they interact, or their defaults, an agent cannot construct a valid call. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.

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 the core action ('Export objects to files') with a clear verb and resource. It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from sibling export tools like export_object or export_scene, relying on the 'batch' prefix to imply multiple objects. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit distinction from alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, and with many export-related tools in the sibling list, an agent cannot determine when batch_export is the appropriate choice over export_object or export_scene.

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