silhouette_export

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is the file-writing location and the returned content (paths, bounds, warnings). It does not say whether existing files with the same base name are overwritten or where the output folder lives, leaving a meaningful gap for a write operation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then format rules, then the filename override, then return values. Nothing is repeated from structured fields and no sentence is 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 no output schema, the description correctly spends a sentence on return values, and it covers two of three parameters in depth for a mutation tool. Overwrite behavior and output-folder location are the only notable omissions.

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% and no parameter has an enum, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it enumerates the legal format values (dxf, svg, png), explains the comma-separated syntax, and clarifies filename's override semantics. Only 'design' is left implicit, which is reasonable given the parameter name.

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 (export) and target (the design) and states what is produced: cut/preview files in the output folder. It is distinguishable from read-style siblings like silhouette_describe_design and from silhouette_render_preview, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those neighbors.

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?

Usage is only implied by the format rules and the 'DXF is required for the free Standard Edition' constraint, which is genuinely useful context. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over render_preview or open_in_studio, and no exclusion guidance.

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