blender_export

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format but does not mention file system effects, overwrite behavior, or prerequisites like a running Blender instance. Since this tool writes files, the lack of any behavioral disclosure beyond operations is insufficient.

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 well-structured with a short intro, a bulleted list of operations, and an example. It is concise and free of excess verbiage, though the example code block and return format section add some length.

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 has 9 parameters and a nontrivial set of operations, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, does not explain platform preset differences, and does not mention limitations or requirements. The output schema covers return format, but overall the description leaves significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only illustrates 'operation' and 'output_path' via an example, leaving other parameters (global_scale, apply_transforms, include_materials, etc.) unexplained. While the operation list adds some value, it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, which are critical for effective use.

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 function: 'Export Blender scenes and objects to interchange and game-engine formats.' It lists specific operations (e.g., export_gltf, export_fbx, export_unity) that distinguish it from siblings like blender_import and blender_render. The verb 'Export' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (exporting scenes/objects to various formats), which is implied by the operation list and example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like blender_import, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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