export_for_mcp_handoff

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description bears the burden. It discloses that the tool 'Writes actual export files to a temp directory and returns their paths', which is a key side effect. It also implies non-destructive behavior by writing to temp, matching annotations. Lacks explicit error handling info but is sufficiently transparent.

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-organized and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then bullets cover targets, prerequisite, behavior, return format, and an example. Every line adds value and the structure aids quick understanding.

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's complexity (file-writing side effects, multiple parameters, no helpful annotations), the description covers the essential elements: purpose, supported targets, prerequisite, temp-file behavior, return format, and a usage example. It falls short on optional parameter semantics and error cases, but is still reasonably complete for selection and initial invocation.

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 must compensate. It explains asset_id (must exist in repository) and target_mcp (lists allowed values 'vrchat' and 'resonite'). However, it leaves ctx, quality_level, include_metadata, and optimization_preset entirely undocumented, even though some have defaults. This partial compensation is useful but incomplete.

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 verb and resource ('Export a repository asset with platform-specific optimisations for cross-MCP handoff') and lists supported targets (vrchat with FBX, resonite with GLB). This differentiates it from generic export tools like blender_export and provides a specific, actionable purpose.

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: it is for cross-MCP handoff to specific targets and requires asset_id to exist in the repository. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. The prerequisite is stated, which is valuable guidance.

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