fab_export_3mf

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'geometry-only' qualifier and excludes Bambu/sliced-job variants, but does not disclose details like where files are written or whether existing files are replaced. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences carry real signal: the main action and the key exclusions. There is no filler, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 a 3-parameter export tool with complete schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and side effects, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is not referencing sibling export tools such as fab_export_stl to help with format selection.

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 the parameters are already documented with clear titles and descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Write') and a precise resource ('geometry-only 3MF mesh'). The negative scoping ('Not a Bambu project and not a sliced job') clearly distinguishes this export from other output types and makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 implied usage context: use this for a geometry-only 3MF mesh, not for a Bambu project or sliced job. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling fab_export_stl tool or give conditions for choosing between 3MF and STL export.

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