blender_verify_fbx

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the specific checks performed (world origin, triangle budget, one-object-per-file) and the return value (PASS/FAIL with per-object report), going beyond the 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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet-style list of checks and a clear return value statement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (implied), the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what it checks, and what it returns. No critical gaps are evident.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description compensates by outlining the checks (world origin, triangle budget, one-object-per-file) that correspond to parameters like expect_origin, tri_budget, expect_single_object. While it does not explain each parameter in depth, the context provided helps an agent infer parameter usage, earning a high score.

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 'Re-import an exported FBX and assert game-engine readiness' which identifies the specific verb (re-import and assert) and resource (FBX). It distinguishes itself from sister tool blender_export_fbx, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states 'Use after blender_export_fbx to self-verify each export instead of post-hoc bulk QA.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and even contrasts with an alternative usage pattern, making it highly instructive.

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