plasticity_export_stl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds real context beyond that: the output is a derived mesh, it is millimeter-scaled and binary STL, and the B-Rep source is not modified. It says nothing about writing to a path, overwriting existing files, or permissions, which leaves notable behavioral gaps for a file-producing operation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and output format, with the second sentence adding the derived-vs-source distinction. No 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?

With no output schema, the description does cover the nature of the result (derived mesh, binary STL, mm-scaled). However, for a five-parameter write tool with 0% schema coverage it omits how the tolerances affect output and what the path/revision inputs mean, so an agent still lacks enough detail to call it confidently.

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% across five parameters, and the description mentions none of them. It never explains 'ids' (which bodies), 'path', 'revision', or how chordToleranceMm / angleToleranceDegrees control tessellation quality — a crucial omission given the tool is literally about tessellation fidelity.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Tessellate exact B-Rep bodies to a ... binary STL') and even contrasts the output with the editable STEP source, which helps separate it from plasticity_export_step. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling export tools (3MF, OBJ, Parasolid) that could be confused with it, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'for slicing' gives an implied use case (preparing geometry for 3D printing/slicing), and the STEP remark hints at when to prefer the source format. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative tool, so guidance is only inferred.

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