export_engine_preset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the file-writing risk. The description adds useful behavioral context: it currently routes through FBX with presets (including Blender/Godot using FBX for robustness), which is not in the annotations. This exceeds the minimum but doesn't detail side effects like overwriting or file naming conventions.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in both Chinese and English. It covers the essential behavior (FBX routing) without padding. The bilingual format adds length but is a deliberate localization choice; still, each sentence earns its place.

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's complexity (six parameters, one required, no output schema), the description is adequate. It clarifies the engine-targeting intent and the FBX routing, and the annotations cover the destructive nature. It doesn't explain return values, but that's not critical for an export tool, and the schema covers parameters. Some might want explicit mention of file overwrite behavior, but annotations suffice.

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%, so all six parameters (path, units, engine, selected, animation, bakeAnimation) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the engine list and FBX routing but adds no extra semantics for parameters like units or bakeAnimation beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: a convenience call that selects the right format and options for a named target engine (unity, unreal, godot, maya, blender, generic). It specifies the current behavior (routes through FBX with matching up-axis and preset), which distinguishes it from raw export tools like export_fbx and export_gltf by being engine-aware.

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 implies when to use it (when you want a preset export for a specific game engine) but does not explicitly compare it with alternative export tools or state when not to use it. There is no mention of using export_fbx directly for non-engine-specific exports, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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