export_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses blocking behavior, the destination directory (/tmp/onshape-mcp-exports/), and the returned fields (path, size, final state). It does not mention permissions, cleanup, or whether the operation is read-only, but this is acceptable coverage for an export.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful behavior information. There is minor redundancy in naming the write path and return fields, but overall it is appropriately sized and well-ordered.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the main behavior and return fields, which is good. However, it lacks any differentiation from the sibling export_part_studio, does not clarify the meaning of 'final state', and leaves potential edge cases unaddressed. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent selecting between many related tools.

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 each parameter. The description adds that the tool blocks and waits for translation, which gives context for timeoutSeconds and pollIntervalSeconds, but it does not significantly expand beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Export an Assembly to STL, STEP, or GLTF') with a distinct resource and formats. It is unambiguous on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling export_part_studio tool.

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 wording 'Export an Assembly' implies the intended use case but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over export_part_studio or any other alternative. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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