export_selection

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

The description explicitly discloses that the operation fails when no exporter exists for the extension, which is behavior beyond the annotations. readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true already flag the write/destructive nature, so the description does not need to restate it.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose, fallback use case, and error condition in two sentences. The bilingual duplication is compact and does not insert 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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains behavior and failure mode. It could be more complete by mentioning whether an existing file would be overwritten, but the core invocation knowledge is present.

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% and the path parameter is already documented as 'output path; extension decides format.' The description restates that semantic without adding new parameter-level detail such as supported extensions or path encoding.

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?

States a precise action: export the current selection into a format determined by the file extension. This clearly distinguishes it from format-specific exporters like export_fbx/export_gltf in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'handy when the engine is unknown' supplies context for choosing this generic exporter over format-specific tools. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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