export_abc

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds a concrete failure mode: if Alembic is not installed, the call fails with err.class_missing. It does not discuss file overwrite or report return behavior, but the plugin dependency warning is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then the critical plugin prerequisite. The bilingual repetition is not filler; it serves the likely MaxScript/3ds Max audience without adding unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers the format, the path parameter, the selection default via the schema, and the most important environmental failure. It could mention return/report behavior, but the plugin warning makes it adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 100%; path and selected are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, so the 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 and resource: 'Export Alembic (.abc)'. This identifies the tool as the Alembic export option among many export_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or scope beyond the schema's selection parameter.

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 implied use is when an Alembic .abc export is needed, and it gives an important prerequisite warning: the Alembic plugin must be installed or the call fails with err.class_missing. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives compared to export_fbx, export_usd, or export_selection.

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