blender_export_presets

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

With all annotation hints set to false (readOnly, idempotent, destructive), the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It does not mention whether the tool exports files, modifies the scene, creates presets, or has side effects. The operation parameter indicates multiple modes, but the description leaves the agent unaware of these behaviors.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that communicate the core purpose without jargon or fluff. It earns its place, though it lacks structure (e.g., no bullets or operation list) that might aid scannability.

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?

The tool is complex with 13 parameters and multiple operations (export, validate, get presets, create custom), but the description does not mention these operations or how the tool fits into a broader workflow. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the overall context of what the tool actually does beyond 'handling differences' is incomplete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some high-level context by referencing scale, format, and bone limits, which loosely maps to check_scale, check_bones, and platform settings, but it does not provide detailed parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Overall, the schema carries the load.

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 identifies the tool as providing platform-specific export presets for VR avatar deployment, mentioning specific platforms (VRChat, Resonite, Unity) and critical aspects (scale, format, bone limits). This distinguishes it from general export tools like blender_export, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when deploying avatars to VR platforms and needing to handle platform-specific differences. It implies usage scenarios but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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