export_gltf

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

With no annotations, the description itself conveys the key behavioral trait: the tool writes a glTF file to the supplied absolute path. It does not mention overwrite behavior, whether exported resources/textures are included, or what the call returns, but the core write-to-file behavior is at least explicit.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by two argument lines. It could earn a 5 with a much smaller addition such as an alternatives sentence, but as written every line serves a purpose without padding.

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 description covers the essential purpose and file_path argument, and 'options' is at least identified as optional. It is incomplete in meaningful ways—no options semantics, no return/result indication, no file overwrite note, and no relation to the many sibling export tools—so it is minimally viable rather than complete.

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?

file_path is given real meaning ('Absolute path for the exported .gltf file'), which is not present in the schema. However, 'options: Optional export options' adds no semantics beyond the schema's optional/nullable declaration, and with 0% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the opaque options object.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Export the garment') and names the target format ('glTF file'), so an agent can identify the action. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling export_glb, which is the same export action with a binary glTF format, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage signal is the format name: an agent can infer 'use this when a glTF file is requested.' There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer export_gltf over export_glb/export_fbx/export_obj, nor any exclusion or alternative routing.

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