export_part_studio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses blocking behavior, the download and filesystem side effect, the exact output directory, returned path/size/state, and explicit error behavior on FAILED or timeout. This is far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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?

Three purposeful sentences with no filler. The core purpose and formats come first, followed by behavioral details, return information, and error handling. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is well-rounded: it states side effects, output location, return values, and failure modes. Combined with the 100% schema coverage for parameters, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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. The description adds value by explaining why timeoutSeconds and pollIntervalSeconds exist ('Blocks until Onshape finishes the translation... Raises an explicit error on FAILED or timeout') and by clarifying the meaning of the downloaded artifact, so it earns a 4.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Export a Part Studio,' then enumerates the supported formats (STL, STEP, PARASOLID, GLTF, OBJ). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling export_assembly tool and tells an agent exactly what the operation produces.

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 clearly scopes the tool to Part Studio exports and gives practical context: it blocks, downloads, and writes to /tmp/onshape-mcp-exports/. It does not explicitly tell the agent to use export_assembly for assemblies, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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