blender_export_fbx

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Export the scene as FBX' without detailing side effects such as file creation, overwriting behavior, or whether the operation is asynchronous (relevant given the presence of job-related sibling tools). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core action.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core action first and the parameter guidance second. Both sentences serve a purpose and there is no fluff. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but as written it is efficient and clear.

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?

In the context of a named export operation with no annotations and an output schema (unknown content), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about potential long-running behavior (relevant given job tools), file overwrite semantics, and any prerequisites. An agent would need additional context to use this tool reliably in complex workflows.

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. The sentence 'Provide the output file path' clarifies that the `filepath` parameter is the destination path, which is a meaningful addition over the bare schema. However, it does not explain format requirements (e.g., extension, absolute vs. relative) or any constraints. It provides basic semantics but not comprehensive guidance.

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 the action ('Export the scene as FBX') with a specific resource (the scene) and format (FBX). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like blender_export_gltf and blender_export_obj. The phrase 'as FBX' is unambiguous and directly tells the agent what the tool does.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the other export tools (gltf, obj). The description does not mention any conditions or alternatives. An agent is left to infer that FBX is chosen based on format preference, but no explicit guidance or exclusions exist.

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