export.extended

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the request is gated and requires local user approval, a client cannot approve its own request, and the same request id is retried after approval. This goes beyond what the annotations convey and clarifies an unusual async approval interaction.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the command name, but it is dense with internal jargon ('gated', 'maturity: L3', 'replay safety', 'milestone transaction id') that is not explained. No sentences are wasted, but the ones present lean on unexplained terminology rather than clear exposition.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description is incomplete for an export tool with 6 parameters, a nested object, a destructive annotation, and a direct sibling (blender_export_file). It omits what is exported, how the extended variant differs, and any parameter semantics, leaving an agent under-equipped 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?

With only 50% schema description coverage and 6 parameters (including a nested path object and three underscore-prefixed harness params), the description adds nothing about parameter meaning. It does not clarify format, path, or the transaction id semantics beyond what the schema already states, and it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 opens with 'PartMe Blender Harness command export.extended' which largely restates the tool name rather than stating what it does. It never says what gets exported (scene? objects? to what format?) or how this 'extended' variant differs from the sibling blender_export_file. An agent cannot tell what resource and verb this covers from the text.

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 explains the gated approval flow (local user approval, no self-approval, retry semantics) but gives zero guidance on when to choose this tool over blender_export_file or any alternative. No exclusions, no conditions, no comparison. The approval context is operationally useful but does not cover selection guidance.

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