export_for_mcp_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it writes to a temp directory and returns paths, and mentions file paths must exist. However, it does not disclose whether it modifies the repository or other side effects.

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, consisting of two sentences plus a list of supported targets and a prerequisite. It front-loads the core action. Very minor room for improvement by adding minor structure.

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 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output, optimization options, or metadata flag, leaving agents with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only mentions asset_id and target_mcp implicitly, but does not explain optimization_preset, quality_level, or include_metadata. The description adds little value beyond the schema structure.

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 it exports a repository asset with platform-specific optimizations for cross-MCP handoff, listing supported targets (vrchat with FBX, resonite with GLB). This differentiates it from generic export tools like 'blender_export' among 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 specifies supported targets and prerequisite (asset_id must exist in repository), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Some guidance is provided, but not comprehensive.

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