io_export_gltf

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 lists many parameters giving insight into behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting, required permissions, size limits). Neutral but not exhaustive.

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?

Extremely concise: a single-sentence purpose followed by a list of parameters with brief, clear explanations. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 file export tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the parameters well. It lacks mention of return values or error handling, but these are less critical given the straightforward nature of the operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., export_format options as 'GLB' or 'GLTF_SEPARATE', selected_only as 'Export only selected objects'). This compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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') and the resource ('glTF/GLB format'), with contextual note ('standard for web and universal 3D'). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like io_export_fbx, io_export_obj, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the format description hints at web usage, there is no mention of trade-offs, when-not-to-use, or comparisons with other export tools.

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