asset.export

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable context: outputs and logs are isolated in an operation-ID subfolder, and the input is never overwritten. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies side effects, though it does not mention any required permissions or disk write specifics.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant phrasing. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral detail is presented efficiently. Every word contributes meaning.

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 presence of an output schema (which explains return values) and the relatively simple 3-parameter interface, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, output isolation, and non-overwriting. It could mention validation constraints (e.g., path existence) but these are not critical for invocation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'formats' must be a non-empty unique list of GLB, BLEND, and/or FBX, but does not elaborate on input_path or output_directory semantics beyond their names. The names are self-explanatory, so the description provides moderate value but does not fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'complete asset', specifying the target formats (GLB, BLEND, FBX). It distinguishes from siblings like scene.inspect or material.list, which have different purposes. The action is 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 implies this is the export tool among siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. However, the context is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for exporting assets, not for inspection or modification. A small gap: no mention of scenarios where export might not be appropriate.

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