Export DXF

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

With only a title annotation, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the document's name, path and saved flag are preserved, describes the live (`Document.Export`) versus headless (ezdxf copy) implementation difference, states what the result reports (method and DXF version), and lists the exact refusal condition for non-.dxf names.

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 purpose, then layered with side-effect, implementation and refusal details, with no filler. The implementation clause ("Live: `Document.Export`, renamed to the name given; headless: a copy written by ezdxf") is dense and slightly cryptic on first read, which keeps it from a 5.

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 fully spelled out, yet the description still notes what the result names. Combined with side-effect disclosure and refusal conditions, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% and there is a single required `path` parameter, so baseline would be 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the supplied name becomes the output name, and a name that is not .dxf is rejected, which is behavior the schema's "Output .dxf file path" does not convey.

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 current drawing as a DXF copy") and immediately disambiguates from the nearest sibling by naming drawing_save_as as the call that re-points the document. An agent can distinguish this from save_as and from drawing_export_dwg without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear use context (produce a DXF copy without re-pointing the open document) and explicitly routes re-pointing behavior to drawing_save_as. It stops short of naming drawing_export_dwg as the alternative for .dwg output, only mentioning .dwg in the refusal clause, so the alternative is implied rather than stated.

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