Export DWG / DXF (2D)

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/destructive/idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains what is actually written (lines, arcs, circles, polylines, texts, fill pattern lines), the layer/color/unit mapping, what is NOT transferred (line types, solid fills unless fillBoundaries), external converter dependency, the overwrite-errors-by-default behavior, the maxEntities safety cap, and the return payload.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: output formats and window scope come first, then fidelity caveats, then the DWG converter prerequisite, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the window-type enumeration and caveat list make it longer than strictly necessary.

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 16-parameter export tool with no output schema, the definition covers format selection, fidelity limits, converter dependency, overwrite/folder behavior, element filtering scope, and explicitly describes the return value {file:{path,sizeBytes}, entityCount, counts, layerCount}. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: default mm units, that fills need fillBoundaries for boundaries/solids, that line types are dropped, and that existing files error unless overwrite is set. It does not explain storyIndex/database/layout selection precedence, so it is not a 5.

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 ('Exports a 2D window ... as DXF, or DWG') and enumerates exactly which window types are supported (floor plan story, section, elevation, detail, worksheet, 3D document, layout). This cleanly separates it from export_pdf, export_ifc, export_3d_model and publish_publisher_set.

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 real conditional guidance: section/elevation windows hold only their own 2D drafting, so to get the model cut you must place it on a layout and export the layout; format 'dwg' needs the ODA File Converter installed, whereas Archicad's own DWG translator requires a Publisher Set instead. It never states when to prefer this over the sibling export tools generally, so it falls just short of a 5.

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