plasticity_export_3mf

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

With annotations already covering readOnly/destructive/openWorld status, the description adds meaningful behavior: the adapter applies a verified 0.001 scale to preserve millimeter dimensions, reports mesh bounds from the saved package, and warns that the result is a derived mesh. It does not mention file overwrite behavior or permissions, but it adds substantial context beyond structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then unit-scaling behavior, then source-retention guidance. Each sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 description covers purpose, unit handling, output derivation, and source retention well. However, for a 5-parameter export tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, it leaves parameter meanings and invocation details unexplained, making it only minimally adequate for correct tool use.

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 never explains the five parameters. It does not clarify what 'ids', 'path', 'revision', 'chordToleranceMm', or 'angleToleranceDegrees' mean or how they affect the export, leaving required parameters undocumented.

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: 'Tessellate current exact Solid or Sheet bodies to a new validated 3MF.' It names the output format and target use case ('for slicers'), so it is clearly distinguishable from sibling export tools such as export_stl, export_obj, export_step, and export_parasolid.

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 provides clear context: use this for slicer-bound 3MF exports, and keep '.plasticity or STEP as the editable source.' It does not explicitly compare against sibling export formats or state exclusions, but the intended usage context is clear.

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