Project export fds

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: it refuses to replace an existing file unless overwrite=true, the CHID-derived filename, and the 'live app only' runtime constraint. It does not describe error/return behavior, but for a file-write tool this is solid added context.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and constraints, and every sentence carries information (path rules, naming, refusal, alternative, runtime scope). The rule-ID tag lines are terse and meta but relevant to this tool's governance; no filler prose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately covers what the call produces (a .fds file at the given path, named per CHID) plus its refusal condition and the read-only alternative. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and post-write state, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by tying the file name to CHID and reinforcing the absolute-path/'.fds' extension constraint and the refusal semantics of overwrite. Slightly above the schema-only baseline.

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 and resource — 'Write the current model as an FDS 6.10.1 input deck (.fds)' — plus the destination. It also names the sibling it is not (preview_fds for read-only), so an agent can separate this from the read path without opening a 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?

Gives a clear when-not alternative ('To only read the deck use preview_fds') and a prerequisite for the destructive variant (overwrite only after the user agreed). It does not route against the other export siblings (shape_export_geom/obst/stl), but the project-level vs shape-level distinction is reasonably implied.

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