rhino_export_obj

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the 'mesh-only' constraint is non-obvious and critical (agents need to know NURBS geometry won't be preserved), and 'selected (or all)' clarifies export scope. It does not disclose overwrite behavior or tessellation semantics, but the annotations already cover the mutation profile.

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 14-word sentence that front-loads the verb and purpose, with the 'mesh-only' qualifier appended without clutter. Every word earns its place; no redundancy with schema or annotation fields.

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?

For a moderate-complexity export tool, the description covers format, scope, and the material constraint (mesh-only), while the output schema and parameter defaults handle the remaining mechanics. It could mention the required path or that NURBS get tessellated, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. 'Selected (or all) objects' maps usefully to the object_ids parameter (default null = all), but nothing is said about the required path parameter or doc_id, leaving those to the schema alone. Partial compensation for the parameter documentation 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?

States a specific verb ('Export') and resource (objects to a Wavefront OBJ file), with the key qualifier 'mesh-only' that distinguishes this from other geometry exports. The named format clearly differentiates it from sibling export tools like rhino_export_stl, rhino_export_step, and rhino_export_dxf.

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 format name implicitly signals when to use this tool (when OBJ output is needed), but no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative format tools are named. Given the large family of export siblings present, the description leaves routing to the agent's inference.

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