cascadeur_export_fbx

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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior and non-read-only status, so the description adds value by disclosing the license-check requirement and instructing the agent to verify skeleton, frame range, and axes in the receiving app. This reveals a non-obvious validation step and post-condition that an agent would otherwise not know.

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 concise at two sentences and starts with the core action ('Export FBX'), but the first sentence's phrase 'after checking app license' is slightly ambiguous (prerequisite vs. behavior). Overall, each sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, yet the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or mode semantics. It covers the license check and verification step, but otherwise leaves an agent guessing about what happens after invocation and how the parameters affect the export.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not address path, mode, or overwrite at all. While the parameter names and enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning to them and fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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') and resource ('FBX'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'cascadeur_import_fbx'. The additional mention of checking the app license and verifying the export adds specificity without muddying the core purpose.

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 phrase 'after checking app license' implies a prerequisite, and the verification step hints at a post-export workflow, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are stated, so the usage context is only implied.

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