export_gltf

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

The annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and destructive, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds a useful concrete failure mode for the missing plugin, but it does not clarify whether an existing file at the output path would be overwritten.

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 action in the first sentence and the plugin prerequisite in the second. The bilingual repetition is not wasteful given the tool's multilingual context, and there is no 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 two-parameter export tool, the description plus schema covers the required path, the selected-scope option, and the main environment dependency. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap because the primary result is a file, and the key failure mode is disclosed.

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 the parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions, including the default behavior of `selected`. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the target formats, so the baseline 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 states 'Export glTF / GLB', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling exporters like export_fbx or export_obj, but the format name makes the scope understandable.

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 provides one valuable usage condition: glTF is a plugin, and if it is missing the call fails with err.class_missing. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternative exporters, so selection guidance is mostly implied by the tool name.

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