export_for_mcp_handoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes export files to a temp directory and returns their paths, implying non-destructive behavior. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 only three sentences, front-loading the main action and key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description only addresses two partially. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the parameter coverage is insufficient for complete understanding, given the zero schema description coverage.

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?

The input schema has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially explains target_mcp ('Supported targets: vrchat, resonite') and asset_id ('must exist in repository'), but it does not clarify optimization_preset, quality_level, or include_metadata. This leaves significant ambiguity for parameter usage.

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 exports a repository asset with platform-specific optimizations for cross-MCP handoff, lists supported targets (vrchat, resonite) and output formats (FBX, GLB), and distinguishes it from general export or repository management tools. The verb 'export' and specific resource 'repository asset' are explicit.

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 specifies when to use: when exporting a repository asset for cross-MCP handoff with optimizations. It gives supported targets and a prerequisite (asset_id must exist). While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the context of sibling tools like blender_export and manage_object_repo provides implicit guidance.

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