export_blocks_to_excel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds that it only reads the drawing, that overwriting an existing file requires confirm=true, and that the workbook contains an INFO sheet carrying the drawing unit. The one residual gap is that it does not say what happens to the confirm=false default beyond the overwrite case, but the destructive surface is otherwise well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the output contract, then a labelled WHEN-TO-USE block, a parameter list, and one concrete example call. Every section earns its place, though the capitalized section header and inline param enumeration make it slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description instead covers the column contract, the file-write/overwrite semantics, unit context, and a worked example. For a 5-parameter export tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and largely does so: block_name accepts wildcards * and ?, path must be .xlsx on the user's machine, layer is optional, confirm governs overwrite, and coordinates are in drawing units. sheet_name is only named without explaining its effect, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 specific verb and resource ('Exporta blocos para .xlsx') and enumerates the exact columns produced (HANDLE, BLOCO, CAMADA, X, Y, Z, ROTACAO, ESCALA_X/Y/Z + one column per TAG). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling round-trip tools by naming import_blocks_from_excel and sync_attributes_from_excel as consumers of the output.

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?

A dedicated 'QUANDO USAR' block gives explicit triggers: produce the support list/table of the drawing, or obtain a template spreadsheet to edit and reimport. It names the alternative tools it pairs with, so the agent knows why it would pick this over a generic export such as dxf_export.

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