f360_export_stl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully says it exports the active design and explains mesh_refinement tradeoffs, but it omits file-overwrite behavior, directory creation, error conditions, and active-document prerequisites.

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 three tight sentences, front-loads the core action and output format, and each sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 simple two-parameter export tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. The main remaining gap is file-handling behavior, but the core action and parameter effects are adequately covered.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for mesh_refinement beyond the schema's 'Mesh density' label by mapping low/medium/high to concrete use cases.

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 states a specific verb and resource: exports the active Fusion 360 design as an STL file. It clearly distinguishes STL from other formats through the 3D-printing context, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling f360_export_step.

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?

It gives clear usage context by saying STL is the standard format for 3D printing (FDM, SLA, SLS). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name f360_export_step as the alternative for CAD interchange.

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