export.extended

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: risk is gated, approval must come from a local user rather than the client, replay uses the same request id, and session/argument checks still apply. This complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with risk and approval constraints. The opening sentence is somewhat redundant with the title, but the rest is dense and free of filler, earning a high but not perfect conciseness score.

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 gated, destructive export operation, the description explains the approval and retry workflow well. However, it omits what is being exported, what 'extended' adds over the base export path, and when a caller should select this tool over `blender_export_file`, leaving a notable completeness gap despite the rich annotations and output schema.

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 around 50%, and the description only lightly touches `_requestId` by explaining the retry behavior. Core required parameters such as `path` and `format` are left entirely to their names/enum values, and `_transactionId`, `_authorization`, and `_expectedSceneRevision` receive no semantic enrichment in the description.

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 identifies the command as `export.extended` and lists risk/maturity, but never states what the tool does in functional terms. It relies on the name and sibling context to imply that it exports something, and it does not distinguish itself from the closely named `blender_export_file`.

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 about when to use this tool versus `blender_export_file` or other export-related siblings. The approval-flow information is operational context, not usage selection guidance, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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