blender_export_fbx

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

Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., file overwriting, side effects). The description is neutral and does not contradict annotations.

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 very short, but the args/returns section is vague and not helpful. It is concise but lacks informative structure; every sentence is minimal but does not add value beyond the name.

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 the complexity of FBX export (many parameters), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain behavior like file overwriting, the role of presets, or return value specifics. The existence of an output schema mitigates only slightly.

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?

The description merely says 'params: Export settings', adding no meaning beyond the input schema. However, the schema itself contains detailed property descriptions (with 100% property descriptions), so the baseline is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool exports as FBX format and notes suitability for Unity/Unreal, distinguishing it from sibling export tools (gltf, obj). It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly list the alternatives.

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 description implies usage for exporting to FBX for game engines, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over blender_export_gltf or blender_export_obj. No when-not or alternative comparison is given.

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