Save elements as module (.mod)

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

Adds a real constraint beyond annotations: all elements must reside in one database (floor plan, or one section/detail/worksheet). Also documents the return shape ({file: {path, sizeBytes}, elementCount}), which annotations do not cover. It does not mention overwrite or permission behavior, but the annotations already establish non-destructive, non-idempotent write semantics.

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-loads the core action and format, then adds the one-database constraint and return shape in two compact sentences. No filler or redundancy.

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 file-export tool with a rich input schema and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return structure and the important database constraint. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including path, elements, overwrite, useSelection, and createFolders. The description only echoes the elements/current-selection choice and does not add syntax or constraint details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Saves') and resource ('elements ... as an Archicad module file (.mod)'), and distinguishes the format from other exports by tying it to hotlinked modules and merging. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Names the format's downstream uses (place_hotlink, merge_file), giving clear context for when this export is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative export tools (e.g., export_ifc), so it falls short of a full routing guide.

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