blender_export_gltf

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as file overwrite behavior or prerequisites, and does not elaborate on the return value beyond 'Export result', which is vague.

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 and structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Returns Export result' is trivial and could be omitted or expanded, so not all sentences are fully informative.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but flagged as present), the description does not need to detail return values. It provides the core purpose and usage hints, but lacks details on prerequisites, error states, or interaction with the Blender scene. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has detailed descriptions for all six parameters, so the schema coverage is effective. However, the description itself adds no extra meaning or context to the parameters; it simply references 'params' generically. With a schema coverage of 0% from the description, it fails to compensate.

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 'Export as glTF format' with a specific verb and resource. It provides context about suitability for Web and Three.js, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling export tools like blender_export_fbx or blender_export_obj, so it falls short of a 5.

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 includes a hint about when to use this format ('suitable for Web, Three.js, etc.'), implying usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct comparisons with other export tools, resulting in only implied usage.

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