export_gltf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (separate .bin and texture files), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects like file overwriting, whether the export is non-destructive to the scene, or what happens on failure. The overwrite parameter defaults to true, but the description doesn't warn about that behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the routing guidance is a single clear sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 an export tool with 11 parameters but no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the format, the file layout, and the key selection rule. It doesn't explain return values or error behavior, but those are less critical for an export command, and the parameter names are largely self-documenting.

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 only 18%, so the description should compensate, but it only clarifies the filename stem and the loose-file behavior. Most of the 11 parameters (y_up, export_uvs, selected_only, etc.) are self-explanatory from their names and defaults, so the schema plus names carry the meaning. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 ('Export') and resource ('.gltf' with separate .bin and texture files), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling export_glb. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces and how it differs from the closest alternative.

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 explicitly says 'Use export_glb unless you specifically need the textures as loose files.' This gives a clear when-to-use rule and names the alternative, leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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