Plecs Export Fmu

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds real context beyond that: the export relies on pre-saved FMU Export settings, only atomic subsystems are valid, and the exact failure message for the wrong input. What it leaves unexplained is why the operation is destructive — presumably an FMU file is written, but overwrite behavior and destination are never stated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the hard constraint, then the signature note. Every sentence earns its place except the final restatement of the single-parameter signature, which is mildly redundant with the schema but still scopes the call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the atomic-subsystem rule is the critical blocker an agent needs. The remaining gap is practical: it does not say where the FMU lands or whether an existing file is overwritten, which matters for a tool flagged destructiveHint.

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 0% with one required parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It does establish that the signature is a single subsystem path and that the subsystem must be atomic, but it never specifies the path format (model/subsystem syntax, separators, whether the model must be loaded), which is the main thing an agent could get wrong here.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Export a subsystem as an FMU') and clarifies that the export configuration comes from the subsystem's saved settings rather than from arguments. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, so an agent must infer the boundary with plecs_fmu_info or plecs_codegen, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition ('only an atomic subsystem can be exported') and the error string a non-atomic subsystem produces, which is valuable usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as plecs_fmu_info (inspection) or plecs_codegen, nor does it mention prerequisites like the model being loaded/open.

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