solid_export

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, so the description earns real credit for stating 'Writes SAT file to disk,' disclosing the provenance hash return, and warning that STEP/STL requests are refused rather than emulated. What's missing is behavior around overwriting an existing file at 'path' and whether the write is atomic.

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 core action and output are front-loaded in the first sentence, with side-effects and disambiguation broken out into labeled lines. Every sentence carries distinct information — no restatement of the name or filler.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description's remaining job is behavioral context, which it supplies: write side-effect, provenance return, and refusal of unsupported formats. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and to know what it will refuse.

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 'handles', 'path', and 'format' are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that export operates on 'selected native ACIS solids,' but adds no format syntax, handle validity rules, or default behavior beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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), a specific resource (selected native ACIS solids), and the exact output artifact (SAT), plus the additional outputs of SHA-256 provenance and refusal of STEP/STL. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like document_save_as, document_export_pdf, or artifact_seal, which handle different formats or functions.

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?

Includes an explicit when-not condition ('unsupported STEP/STL requests are refused rather than emulated unsafely') and a disambiguation line scoping its use to 'CAD interchange for solid geometry.' It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should choose for other export formats, leaving that inference to the agent.

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