export_obj

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds useful limitations: no animation, no material instances, and optional selection-only export. This goes beyond structured annotations and helps the agent predict what the output will and will not contain.

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 with the core action and scope. The bilingual duplication adds some length, but it is still short and each version carries the same useful information.

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 covers purpose, scope, and format limitations. It does not mention overwrite behavior or file-extension handling, but the destructiveHint annotation partially covers the mutation risk.

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 schema already documents both path and selected. The description mentions selection-only behavior but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Export a Wavefront OBJ (optionally selection only).' It clearly identifies the target format and scope, distinguishing it from sibling export tools like export_fbx or export_gltf.

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 usage for static meshes ('No animation or material instances - fine for static meshes') but does not explicitly state when to choose OBJ over alternatives or name sibling formats. It gives context but leaves the when-not-to-use case to inference.

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