export_flat_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the refusal semantics ('a part without a sheet-metal body is refused (``not_found``) and nothing is written') and precisely what geometry is included. It leaves overwrite behavior for an existing target file and any permission requirements unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the geometry scope and then the failure mode. Nothing is redundant and the parenthetical exclusion is load-bearing rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key edge case (no sheet-metal body) plus the content scope. For a mutation-style export, it is nearly complete; only overwrite/conflict behavior on an existing file is missing.

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 the nested input_data/file_path is already documented as an output path ending in .dxf or .dwg. The description's 'to DXF or DWG' corroborates but adds no new meaning (no casing, overwrite, or path-resolution rules), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: export the active sheet-metal part's flat pattern to DXF or DWG. The scope is narrowed further by 'flat-pattern geometry only (no bend lines or sketches)'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling export_dwg, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool given the overlapping DWG format.

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?

'for laser or waterjet cutting' gives a clear downstream use case that implies when this tool applies, and the no-bend-lines note implicitly excludes jobs needing forming data. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over export_dwg or export_step, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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