Shape export geom

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write, but the description substantially exceeds them: it discloses the watertight precondition, that the export is refused on overlapping booleans, the GPU cut-cell build requirement, the HRRPUA limitation, and that re-exporting with the same ID replaces. Minor note: idempotentHint=false sits slightly awkwardly with 're-exporting with the same ID replaces it', though this is a nuance not a contradiction.

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?

Purpose and the key sibling contrast are front-loaded, and the dense run-on sentences carry real information. It is on the long side for one tool, with the trailing rule-reference line and some repeated 'use shape_export_obst' phrasing that could be tightened.

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, but the description fully covers what is produced (a triangulated &GEOM surface), the units (m, z-up), default scope (all visible roots), and every failure mode. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description's parameter content ('every visible root, each keeping its own SURF', 'origin repositions the bbox min corner') largely restates the schema defaults, so it adds little meaning beyond what is already structured.

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+resource ('export the exact CSG mesh as an &GEOM triangulated surface') and immediately distinguishes itself from shape_export_obst by contrasting exact geometry with voxelization. An agent can identify the operation and its fidelity trade-off 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use this for watertight surfaces, but fall back to shape_export_obst for overlapping booleans (open seam) and for burners (HRRPUA unsupported). Alternatives and the conditions selecting them are named, not implied.

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