export_stl

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: handles=None exports every solid, to_origin parks the part and 'puts it back afterwards', and quality affects tessellation. The STL world-coordinate pitfall is explained, providing excellent transparency.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then adds behavior details without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and it remains compact despite covering multiple parameters and gotchas.

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?

The description covers all necessary context for an export tool: what it does, parameter effects, output considerations, and a critical coordinate-system gotcha. With an output schema present, no additional return-value explanation is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains handles, quality, and to_origin, adding significant meaning. Path is self-explanatory, and binary is not explained, but the description covers the most nuanced parameters well.

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 clearly states 'Export 3D solids to STL' with the specific purpose of generating a file for a slicer to 3D print. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling export tools like export_pdf and export_dxf.

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 description provides clear context that the tool is for 3D printing and explains parameter usage (handles=None exports all, quality settings, to_origin). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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