plasticity_export_parasolid

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 agent knows this writes a new resource without being destructive. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — 'without overwriting' — but does not address what happens on a path collision or any permission/error behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action and file formats front-loaded, followed by the usage rationale. No wasted words.

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 write/export tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, format and the non-overwrite guarantee but omits any explanation of the required parameters and the expected result. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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% for three required parameters (ids, path, revision), so the schema documents nothing. The description implies 'bodies' and 'file' loosely map to ids/path, but the required 'revision' parameter is entirely unexplained and no format/constraint guidance is offered to compensate.

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 (native B-Rep bodies to a Parasolid .x_t/.x_b file), which is distinctive from the other export siblings by naming the exact kernel format. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with plasticity_export_step or the other exports.

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?

'Use this for high-fidelity exchange with software that supports the Parasolid kernel format' gives a clear when-to-use condition. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. export_step) or stating when-not to use it, but the context is well established.

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