armorpaint_export_mesh

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it says 'Export ... to an OBJ file,' which writes to the filesystem and can overwrite files, while readOnlyHint is true. The description also does not explain overwrite behavior or side effects, and the contradiction makes the tool's safety profile unreliable.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence. It communicates the essential action, object, and output format without redundancy or filler.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description leaves important invocation details uncovered: overwrite semantics, path requirements, and the meaning of 'current mesh.' The annotation contradiction further undermines an agent's ability to reason about side effects.

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 explain the parameters, but it does not mention path_name or overwrite. The only useful inference is that path_name is the destination OBJ path; overwrite behavior is left entirely to the parameter name and default.

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'), object ('the current mesh'), and target format ('OBJ file'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool produces. The explicit OBJ format and mesh resource also separate it from sibling exporters such as export_textures, export_material, and export_layer.

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 intended use is implied: use this when the current mesh needs to be saved as an OBJ. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites like having a selected mesh, and no comparison with the other export siblings.

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