fusion_export_stl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it exports a body to an STL file, which implies file creation, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), return values, possible errors (e.g., invalid body_id or unwritable file path), or whether it modifies the document. For a tool that performs I/O and likely has failure modes, this is significantly under-disclosed.

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?

The description is one sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Export one body to an STL file') and includes a brief example. There is no wasted verbiage, and the structure is clean and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (file export, potential errors, integration with mesh comparison), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values (if any), error handling, prerequisites (e.g., an open document, body existence), and how it fits with sibling tools beyond the compare_meshes example. The absence of an output schema and annotations amplifies the need for richer description, which is not provided.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain body_id or file_path beyond their names. It mentions 'one body' informally, but for body_id, it does not clarify that it expects a valid body identifier from the Fusion document, nor does it specify the expected format for file_path (absolute vs. relative, file extension, etc.). The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional semantic value to the parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'one body' to an STL file, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings like render_orthographic_views or get_cross_section. The mention of compare_meshes() adds a concrete use case, though it is not strictly needed for purpose definition.

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 example 'e.g. so mesh_tools.compare_meshes() can check the reconstruction against the original' provides a clear context for when to use this tool (preparing a body for mesh comparison). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the example is sufficient to infer the primary use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites like document state or whether multiple bodies are supported.

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