export_3d_selection

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden and does it well. It discloses the 256 MiB cap, attribute preservation, object-local coordinates, header transform storage, return-type behavior, no-overwrite guarantee, and non-lossless numeric fidelity—all beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action and primary constraint, while subsequent sentences add preservation details, coordinate behavior, return format, and caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity and sparse annotations, the description is notably complete: it covers operation, size limit, preserved attributes, coordinate frames, header contents, return shape, overwrite behavior, and fidelity caveat. Since an output schema exists, return-value structure need not be repeated. The only small gap is scene_id/path semantics, which does not undermine overall completeness.

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 compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does clarify that 'name' refers to a named subset and that output goes under configured roots, but it never explains the required scene_id parameter or the expected path format. This partial compensation is adequate but not complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Write the active or named subset to a NEW binary .ply') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like open_3d_files, capture_3d_view, or select_3d_region. The unique export-to-file purpose is unmistakable.

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 makes the intended usage clear: export a selected 3D subset to a new .ply file, subject to size and overwrite constraints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but no sibling tool performs this export operation, so the context is sufficient.

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