export_mesh_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether outputPath is overwritten if it exists, whether the project must be open, or what happens if the scene contains non-mesh nodes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

This is a file-writing operation with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations explaining side effects; the description should at least address overwrite behavior and the MeshLibrary concept. As written, an agent knows what it produces but not the operational consequences of calling it.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including meshItemNames and its default of 'all') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or behavioral detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: exporting a scene into a MeshLibrary resource. An agent can distinguish it from export_project and create_resource by the MeshLibrary output, but the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 versus alternatives like export_project or create_resource, no preconditions (e.g. scene must be valid/imported), and no note about when the optional meshItemNames filter should be supplied.

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