export_mesh_library

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects like file overwriting, permissions needed, or any impact on existing resources. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It could benefit from additional context without losing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what a MeshLibrary resource is, the purpose of the optional 'meshItemNames' parameter, or the format of the output file. Sibling tools like game_tilemap suggest related uses, but the description lacks this context.

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 input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'export' and the resource transformation from scene to MeshLibrary resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_project or create_resource. However, the phrasing 'Export a scene as a MeshLibrary resource' could be interpreted as exporting an existing MeshLibrary rather than creating one from a scene.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_resource or export_project. The description does not explain prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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