cad_export

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds a genuinely useful constraint (destination must be an absolute path), but it is silent on overwrite semantics even though an 'overwrite' parameter exists, and on whether long exports are rate-limited or how failures are surfaced.

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 tight sentences with the format list first and the path constraint second; nothing is padded. However, that brevity is achieved by omitting rather than by precision, so it is efficient but arguably under-sized for a 7-parameter tool.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, nested options, and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent unable to infer how to use layout, selection, version, or overwrite. Only format and path are addressed, so it is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it largely does not. It touches only 'format' (and even then omits 'stl', which is in the enum) and 'path', leaving layout, options, version, overwrite, and selection completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 (Export) and resource (active drawing or a layout) plus the output formats, so the agent immediately knows this produces files rather than viewing or editing them. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as cad_view or cad_draw, but the export framing is naturally distinct.

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 description says what can be exported ('active drawing or a layout') but never says when to choose this over alternatives or what prerequisites apply, aside from the absolute-path requirement. There is no guidance on when a layout-only export is appropriate versus a full drawing export.

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