armorpaint_export_material

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description describes an export operation that writes amaterial file to disk—a side-effecting operation. This contradicts the read-only annotation, and the description provides no additional behavioral context.

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 a single tightly worded sentence with no unnecessary filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 three parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no parameter guidance in the description, the tool definition is not fully complete. The output schema may cover return values, but the agent still lacks critical invocation details like which material is selected by default and what overwrite does.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It provides no information about path_name, material_id (including the meaning of -1), or overwrite behavior, leaving all three parameters semantically underdocumented.

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 ('Export'), a resource ('a material'), and the output format ('an ArmorPaint material file'). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_textures, export_mesh, and armorpaint_import_material.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus armorpaint_import_material or the other export tools. No alternative conditions, prerequisites, 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.