export_fbx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the core export action. It does not disclose overwrite behavior, whether the destination directory must exist, scope of the exported garment, or any success/failure 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 two brief parts: a front-loaded purpose sentence and a single parameter explanation. There is no filler or repetition, making it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity export tool, the description covers the essential invocation detail: what is exported and where to write it. The lack of detail about overwriting or return values is a minor gap given how simple the operation is.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining file_path as an absolute path and explicitly tying it to the .fbx output. This adds useful meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' property, though it stops short of providing format or example details.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a target ('the garment'), and an explicit format ('FBX'), which clearly sets it apart from sibling export tools such as export_obj and export_glb. Even without reading the schema, an agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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 no guidance about when to choose FBX over the many sibling export tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer suitability solely from the format name in the first sentence.

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