export_ldr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses output granularity (one build step per level) and a real failure mode plus its cause/fix (missing parts -> legacy_ids=True). However, it never says where the file lands when path is null, whether an existing file is overwritten, or what the call returns on success/failure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and format, followed by workflow and a conditional tip. Every sentence adds something; the only mild excess is the UI navigation path, which is nonetheless actionable.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be restated. Still, with 0% schema description coverage and a null-defaulting path parameter, an agent lacks what it needs to predict where the file is written or whether it clobbers an existing file.

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 for both parameters. It does explain legacy_ids well with a concrete example (3023 instead of 3023b), but path is left completely unexplained despite defaulting to null, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: write the model as an LDraw .ldr file, with the added detail that it is one build step per level. That is enough to separate it from adjacent siblings like render_model, image_to_grid, or describe_model. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it lands just short of the top mark.

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?

It supplies concrete downstream workflow (import via Mecabricks Workshop > File > Import) and a conditional remedy: if parts come in missing, re-export with legacy_ids=True. That is real use guidance rather than a bare 'call this to export'. It does not state when not to use it, but no sibling export tool exists to route away from.

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