pro_visualize_export

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that grouping requires the Visualize 2026 API, but it does not mention where the file is written, what happens on version mismatch, or whether an existing project is overwritten.

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 with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded before the version caveat. It is arguably too terse given the missing destination/return information, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a non-idempotent, non-read-only export with one enum parameter and no output schema. The description never says what the tool returns (a file path?), where the project lands, or how failure on older Visualize versions manifests, leaving real gaps for an agent that must report the outcome.

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%, but the single 'grouping' parameter is an enum (appearance/part/none) with a default, so the allowed values are self-documenting. The description only implicitly touches that parameter by noting the 2026 API requirement for grouping, and it does not explain what 'appearance' or 'part' grouping actually produce.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Export current CAD to a native .SVPJ Visualize project'), so the agent knows it produces a Visualize project file rather than a generic export. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'export' or the pro_visualize_render/render_project tools, leaving some ambiguity about which export path to choose.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: it does not say when to pick this over 'export', 'save_part', or pro_visualize_render_project, nor whether a document must be active. The only contextual hint is the version requirement buried in the second sentence.

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