Shape export obj

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuine context beyond them by disclosing that it writes a file on the local PC, plus the mesh is exact CSG (not voxelized) with units m and z-up. It stops short of covering overwrite behavior or failure modes, but the core side effect is disclosed.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the operation and format, then the side-effect warning. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 an export tool with no output schema whose write/read annotations are already present, the description supplies units, orientation, exactness and filesystem impact. The only real gap is the semantics of the optional node_id and overwrite behavior, which are minor for calling it correctly.

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 50%: 'path' is documented in the schema and reinforced by 'at the path you give', but 'node_id' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving what it selects ambiguous (single node vs whole document). Baseline 3 given partial coverage.

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 (the exact CSG mesh as OBJ), and the 'no voxelization' qualifier distinguishes it from voxel-mesh exports such as shape_preview_voxels. It does not explicitly name its closest siblings (shape_export_stl, shape_export_geom, shape_export_obst), so the differentiation is implied by format rather than stated.

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 'Shape Studio → CFD' framing and 'no voxelization' hint at when this export is appropriate (wanting exact geometry for downstream CFD), but it never states when to prefer it over shape_export_stl/geom/obst, nor any exclusion. Usage is only implied.

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