creo_export_step

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it explicitly states that same-name outputs are refused/not overwritten. This helps an agent predict failure 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and source location, then adds the important overwrite restriction. Every part of the sentence 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 a two-parameter export tool, the description covers the key operational constraints: source location, what is produced, and the refusal to overwrite. It does not explain the return value or output destination explicitly, but this is a minor gap given the straightforward operation and rich schema.

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 parameters and their formats. The description reinforces the source location for model_file and the no-extension nature of output_name, but does not add substantive semantic information 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 clear, specific operation: exporting a new STEP file from a Creo part copy in the safe output directory. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral constraint, refusing to overwrite same-name output, which makes it easy to separate from the many sibling Creo tools.

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 about the expected input location ('safe output directory' part copy) and the overwrite restriction, so an agent knows when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to be a direct STEP-export alternative.

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