export

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only a vague hint that a verification file is produced and a copy lands in exports/, without explaining overwrite/force behavior or what the verification step entails.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: the two fragments are cryptic and not front-loaded with the tool's action. No useful information is conveyed in proportion to its length.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and only minimal safety annotations, the description carries nearly the full explanatory burden and fails it. An agent lacks enough information to invoke the tool correctly or understand its side effects.

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 0% for four parameters (force, formats, filename, object_name), and the description explains none of them. Filename is required and force/formats are consequential, yet the text adds no meaning beyond the bare property names, so the schema gap is left entirely unfilled.

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 reads as fragments ('Проверочный файл, затем копия в exports/. STEP — мастер.') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It hints at a file check followed by a copy into exports/ and something about STEP, but never says what is being exported or from where, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like import_cad_file or script.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives. The fragment 'STEP — мастер' is too cryptic to function as routing guidance, leaving the agent to guess when 'export' should be chosen over the other tools.

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