blender_export_obj

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotations. For an export tool, details about file overwriting, side effects, or required permissions are absent. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no clarification about what happens on repeated calls with the same filepath.

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 short but includes redundant lines like 'Args: params: Export settings' and 'Returns: Export result', which do not add value beyond the schema and annotations. The core purpose is stated in one sentence, but the additional text is unnecessary.

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 tool has 4 parameters with a nested object, an output schema, and many siblings, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the export result contains, how the tool integrates with Blender's file system, or any limitations. The output schema exists but is not leveraged to reduce burden.

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 groups parameters as 'Export settings' without adding meaning beyond the input schema. Since the schema already provides detailed descriptions for filepath, selected_only, apply_modifiers, and export_materials, the description's contribution is minimal. Baseline of 3 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 'Export as OBJ format' clearly states the verb 'export' and the resource 'OBJ format', distinguishing it from siblings like blend_export_fbx. However, it does not explicitly mention that it exports from the current Blender scene, which is implied by the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use OBJ export versus alternatives like FBX or GLTF. It lacks any context about file format tradeoffs, such as OBJ's support for geometry but limited animation or material data. This omission forces the agent to rely on external knowledge.

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