proj_export_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the board is focused first, that omitting output_path may trigger a file-save dialog, and that `generated` is only true if a new file actually exists, otherwise the result is merely dispatched with a reason.

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 core action, then immediately covers focus behavior, output_path omission consequences, return semantics, and the alternative route. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given a mutation-like export tool with no annotations, one optional parameter, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers preconditions, side effects, confirmation behavior, return value meaning, and the more deterministic alternative.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the single optional parameter: output_path is a full path for the output .step file, and omitting it may cause Altium to show a save dialog. This is exactly the semantic detail the schema lacks.

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: export the open PCB to a STEP 3D model file. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like proj_export_dxf and proj_export_image.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative route (OutJob with ExportSTEP via proj_run_outjob) and the condition that favors it: the OutJob result can always be checked. It also notes the focus precondition and the dialog behavior when output_path is omitted.

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