export_stl_mm

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

The description adds the unit context (millimeters), which is meaningful for STL exports. Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint: true) and that it is not read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not disclose additional behaviors like file overwriting or scene requirements, but the unit specification adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it lacks additional structure like parameter summaries or usage examples, but this is acceptable for its brevity.

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 relatively simple with only two parameters and an output schema, but the description omits important usage context such as what object_name does, whether the export replaces an existing file, and any prerequisites. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance make the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention the two parameters (filepath, object_name). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but object_name's meaning and behavior when empty are not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer semantics.

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 clearly states the tool exports STL in millimeters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling export tools like export_glb, export_scene, and export_selected by specifying format and units. However, it does not clarify whether it exports the whole scene or a specific object, leaving scope ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_glb, export_scene, or export_selected. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it is preferred. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.

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