export_3mf

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 that the export captures objects, positions and configuration, but says nothing about whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten, what permissions or directory requirements apply, or what the tool 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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with the clarifying parenthetical immediately after. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given what it omits.

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?

For a one-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the operation's purpose and content scope, but leaves path semantics and overwrite behavior unaddressed, which are the main things an agent would need 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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains output_path expectations such as format, required extension, or whether a directory must pre-exist.

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') and resource ('the bed'), and clarifies the scope of what is exported (objects, positions and configuration) plus the output format (3MF project). This distinguishes it from siblings like upload_gcode or save_profile_as, though it never names those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as slice, upload_gcode, or save_profile_as. No prerequisites, no indication of when a 3MF export is preferable to other export/save paths.

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