blender_export_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It reveals that exports can be scoped to selected objects or the entire scene, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure, whether it overwrites existing files, permission requirements, or the fact that filepath must be provided. It adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, followed by two bullet-like lines clarifying key parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers the main parameters but omits any mention of the required 'filepath' parameter or potential error conditions. For a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is adequate but not thorough enough to fully guide an agent.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining the 'format' parameter (listing gltf, glb, fbx, obj) and the 'selected_only' boolean flag. However, it does not describe the required 'filepath' parameter at all, leaving a critical gap.

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 (exports) and resource (current scene or selected objects to a 3D asset file). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like blender_create_object or blender_render_viewport. It is clear and specific but lacks explicit differentiation from other export-oriented siblings (if any existed).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a saved scene or matching file extension) or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it exports, but no context is given for choosing between exporting the whole scene or selected objects.

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