blender_export_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'bakes' but does not clarify whether baking modifies the in-memory scene, whether existing files at output_path are overwritten, or what the tool returns on success/failure. For a file-writing operation, these side effects are important and unaddressed.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and formats are front-loaded, and everything present earns its place. It is concise without being under-specified for the purpose it states.

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 simple 2-parameter export tool, the core purpose and input semantics are covered well. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important contextual gaps around side effects, return values, and failure behavior, making it merely adequate rather than 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description repeats the format options but adds no extra meaning for output_path, such as extension handling, directory requirements, or overwrite behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the specific action ('Bakes and exports'), the resource ('current 3D scene'), and the concrete output formats (.glb, .gltf, .obj, .stl, .fbx). This naturally distinguishes it from siblings like blender_capture_viewport or blender_inspect_scene, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when the current 3D scene needs to be converted into a standard 3D model file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the format list and 'current 3D scene' scope make the intended usage obvious.

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