export

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions resolution and OBJ format, and gives a Blender import example with axis configuration, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose whether the export overwrites files, requires authentication, or what happens if the path is invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure – it covers the key technical detail but misses side effects and error behavior.

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, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. The Blender import example is a practical addition that earns its place. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry full weight. It lacks parameter explanations, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., does the model need to be built first?). The example is helpful but does not compensate for the missing parameter details and safety implications. The absence of annotations and output schema makes this description insufficient for reliable tool use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does not mention 'name' or 'path' at all, and only implicitly mentions 'resolution' via 'at the given resolution'. The description fails to clarify what 'name' and 'path' refer to (e.g., the model name, the file path), leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 action (export/build to OBJ) and the resource (the model being built), and mentions the coordinate system (Z up, metres) which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'put_model' or 'get_model', though 'export' is a distinct concept. It could be clearer about what exactly is exported (e.g., the current model in the scene).

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 use for exporting to OBJ for Blender import, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'put_model' (which might be for uploading) or 'get_model' (which might be for downloading). It gives a concrete usage example for Blender import, which helps, but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives.

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