io_export_obj

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It rephrases parameter names slightly (e.g., 'Write .mtl file' for export_materials) but does not explain side effects (e.g., file overwrite policies, file system dependencies, or whether the export applies to the entire scene or selection). The behavioral impact is largely assumed.

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: one line for the operation and a compact list of parameters with inline annotations. No extraneous text. The purpose is front-loaded. Every word 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?

Given the simplicity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all parameters with basic explanations. However, it omits important context: whether it exports the current scene, the need for an active scene, file path conventions, or overwrite behavior. The description is adequate for a simple exporter but lacks detail for full self-sufficiency.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add value beyond the parameter names. It provides brief explanations (e.g., 'Output .obj path', 'Export only selected') that clarify parameter intent. However, these are very close to the parameter titles and lack additional context like constraints or example values. The explanations are functional but minimal.

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 tool exports to OBJ format, denoted as 'universal mesh exchange', which conveys purpose and scope. While the name alone indicates the format, the description reinforces the specific action. Although it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling export tools (e.g., FBX, GLTF), the uniqueness is implied by naming the format.

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 alternatives like io_export_fbx or io_export_gltf. There is no mention of prerequisites, best practices, or scenarios where OBJ is preferred. The description lacks any context for decision-making.

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