motion blender export fbx

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

The description supplements annotations by explaining it creates a new FBX, bakes animation, disables leaf bones, rejects invalid influence counts, and notes the original .blend is never overwritten. It does not fully disclose output destination or existing-FBX overwrite behavior, but overall behavior is transparent.

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 well structured: purpose first, then constraints, then a practical follow-up note. No unnecessary filler or redundancy.

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 description covers core behavior, validation criteria, and a post-export verification step. Since an output schema is present, return-value details are less critical, though the armature parameter ambiguity and unspecified output file location leave small gaps.

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?

Only blendFile has a parameter description; armature is a required parameter with no explanation of expected name format or source. Schema description coverage is 50%, and the tool description only refers to a 'named armature' without defining it, so parameter semantics are insufficient.

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's specific action: exporting a named armature, bound meshes, and active clip to a new FBX with leaf bones disabled and animation baked. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like inspect, animate, or rig.

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 gives purpose and validation behavior, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings, such as 'after animation is complete' or 'instead of save operations.' Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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