export_stl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that negative parts/holes are cut out and that colors and settings are NOT carried into the STL, plus the one-file-per-object vs consolidated grouping behavior. It does not say where files are written or what the call returns, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then scope options, then the behavioral caveats; nearly every clause carries information. The parenthetical farm/share rationale is slightly verbose but justifies usage.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers selection scope, grouping, and geometry semantics well. The notable omission is any indication of the output (file locations or return value), which an agent would want given there is no output 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 coverage is 0% (titles only), so the description must compensate, and it does: 'objects' is explained as named objects, 'plate' as selecting all of a plate, and 'one_file=True' is described as merging objects that are on the plate. It does not clarify plate index conventions, the default plate 0, or whether object names or IDs are accepted.

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 ('Save objects as STL files') and immediately enumerates the three export scopes: named objects, a whole plate, or the entire project. This is clearly distinguishable from nearby siblings like save_project, slice_project, and replace_with_stl.

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 concrete motivation for using it ('to print them on other printers of a farm, or to share them') and explains the scope choices an agent must pick between. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. versus save_project or replace_with_stl).

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