export_flat_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: it creates a flat pattern if none exists, explains the output layers, and notes what is omitted (tangent lines, sketches). However, it does not state whether an existing output file is overwritten, what permissions are required, or how failures are handled.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and output, then adds layer details and an Args section. It is appropriately sized for an export tool, with no wasted sentences, though the Args section partly repeats information already stated.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it sufficiently covers the core export behavior, layer mapping, side effect of creating a flat pattern, and parameter usage. Minor gaps around overwrite behavior and the instance parameter are acceptable because instance is documented in the schema.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: path behavior when empty, format as DXF or DWG, and bend_lines controlling bend-line layers. The remaining instance parameter is documented in the schema itself.

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: exporting the flat pattern of the active sheet metal part, including flat size, thickness, and bend count. It also specifies the DXF/DWG output and layer mapping, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools such as export_document and export_bom.

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 gives clear usage context: an empty path reports only the flat size, while providing a path produces a DXF/DWG file. It also explains that a flat pattern is created if the part lacks one. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the conditions for using this tool are clear.

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