Export a MeshLibrary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether an existing file at outputPath is overwritten, whether the editor must be running, or whether the source scene is modified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word carries information about the operation, the input and the output artifact.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally state the write semantics (file creation/overwrite at outputPath) and whether the operation touches the source scene. It is adequate for identifying the tool but thin on the behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a file-writing operation.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including the meshItemNames filter and the projectPath default) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb ("Export"), a specific resource ("meshes in a 3D scene") and the output artifact ("a MeshLibrary resource for GridMap"). No sibling tool in the list overlaps with this job, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but it also doesn't need to say more.

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?

"for GridMap" is the only hint of when this tool is appropriate; there is no statement of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or what alternative to pick (e.g., save_scene). An agent must infer the use case from the resource format alone.

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