f360_export_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether an existing file at the path is overwritten, whether the active design must be saved first, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns on success or failure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and format, followed by practical usage context and the key path instruction. No wasted wording.

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?

For a one-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, format, and path expectations. However, without annotations it omits important side-effect details such as overwrite behavior and the success/error response, leaving gaps for an agent invoking it.

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%, so the schema already documents the single filepath parameter and gives an example. The description adds a requirement for an absolute path with filename and .step extension, but this largely repeats what the schema example shows.

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 (exports), resource (active Fusion 360 design), and output format (.step). The format-specific use cases help distinguish it from generic exports, but the sibling f360_export_stl is never named to clarify the boundary.

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 clear use contexts — supplier quotes, CNC machining, importing into other CAD tools — which implies when STEP is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when to choose f360_export_stl instead or mention any exclusions.

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