export_fabric

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral constraint (CLO 2025.2 refuses .jfab) and notes the binary nature of the .fab inside, which is useful. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling, or whether the operation returns anything. For a save operation, these are notable omissions, but the provided nuance adds some transparency.

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 two lines, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a parenthetical detail that is relevant without bloating the text. The argument list is structured and each parameter has a brief, clear definition. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, format, and parameter meanings. It is missing details about overwrite behavior, return values, or potential errors, but given the simplicity, these are gaps rather than critical omissions. The description is adequate for basic invocation but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: fabric_index as 'Fabric to export' and file_path as 'Absolute output path ending in .zfab'. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema types and titles, giving the agent enough to use them correctly.

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 action ('Save a fabric as a .zfab file') with a specific resource (fabric) and output format. It distinguishes from sibling export tools by format and resource, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The nuance about CLO 2025.2 refusing .jfab adds specificity without confusion.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternative export tools (e.g., export_obj, export_fbx). It implies the use case (exporting fabric to .zfab) but provides no exclusions or comparisons to siblings. The only guidance is the file path extension requirement, which is more of a constraint than a usage condition.

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