export_fbx

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add context. It adds a valuable warning about units=automatic producing a 1-unit model in Unity/Unreal and instructs the caller to set units first. It does not mention file overwrite behavior, but the destructiveHint annotation partially covers that.

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 text is compact and front-loaded with the essential purpose, followed by a focused warning. The bilingual duplication roughly doubles the length, but it is consistent and not padded with filler.

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 7-parameter file-export tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, main options, and the critical unit-scale pitfall. It does not explain return/result behavior or overwrite semantics, and it leaves alternative exporters unnamed, so the guidance is useful but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description only needs to add value beyond the schema. It names the main options and clarifies the unit-scale pitfall, but it does not deepen meaning around relationships like animation vs. bakeAnimation or defaults beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: FBX export, with an explicit list of configurable options (preset, selection-only, animation, up-axis, units). It distinguishes itself from sibling exporters by identifying itself as the FBX workhorse and by naming the Unity/Unreal/Maya presets.

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?

It clearly marks itself as the main FBX export path and gives a concrete prerequisite: use set_units first to avoid unit-scale mistakes. However, it does not explicitly tell an agent when to choose this tool over sibling exporters like export_obj, export_gltf, export_engine_preset, or export_selection.

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