plasticity_export_step

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that it creates a new file without overwriting and preserves exact B-Rep geometry, but it does not explain permission needs, side effects on the scene, or output 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, immediately stating the action, scope, output format, and one behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with three required parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter explanations, guidance on selecting alternatives among many export/import tools, and any indication of return value or failure modes.

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 define the three required parameters, but it only vaguely implies 'ids' corresponds to B-Rep bodies. It says nothing about 'path' (file destination) or 'revision', leaving most parameter meaning 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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('exact B-Rep bodies to a new STEP file'), clearly distinguishing it from other export tools in the sibling list such as export_parasolid and export_stl. An agent can identify the tool's core action without opening any schema.

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?

The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternative export formats or when not to use it. It only describes the action and a safety constraint ('without overwriting'), leaving the choice among export tools entirely to inference.

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