fusion_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that writes go to the local filesystem and never the cloud, but omits whether an existing file at the target path is overwritten, what happens if no design is active, and what is returned.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core action and format list come first, and the local-only constraint follows as a qualifier. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 no output schema and no annotations about return values, the description should say what the call yields (file path, success flag) and how `path` interacts with `format`. The format coverage is complete, but this mutation tool remains underspecified on the write target and result.

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 must compensate — and it partly does by enumerating the valid `format` values (step, stl, f3d, obj, 3mf, iges, sat) where the schema only offers a bare string with no enum. The `path` parameter is left completely unexplained: no indication whether it is a directory, a full filename, or what the empty default means.

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 (export), the exact resource (the active design), and enumerates all supported output formats. It is unambiguously distinct from every sibling (status, api, run, rollback, inspect, check, look, render, ui_command), none of which export geometry.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'export the active design'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling alternative is named. The one routing hint given — 'Local file only (never the cloud)' — is a scope constraint rather than a selection rule.

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