nx_export_step

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It states 'Never overwrites' and constrains output to DSH_NX_WORKSPACE, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not clarify what happens if the target file already exists (error vs. auto-rename) or what the return value looks like, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary action and format are front-loaded, followed by a critical constraint. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

The core function and constraints are clear, and the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). However, the ambiguity around the 'path' parameter and the lack of error handling details mean an agent may not fully understand how to supply correct input. Overall adequate for a straightforward export, but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema defines a single 'path' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description gives no clue about what 'path' means—whether it's a filename, a relative path, or a directory—beyond the vague 'below DSH_NX_WORKSPACE'. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 states a specific verb ('export'), resource ('current work part'), format ('STEP AP242'), and destination ('below DSH_NX_WORKSPACE'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_part_as. The 'Never overwrites' clause adds a unique constraint, making the tool's identity unmistakable.

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 implies the tool is for exporting to STEP format but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives like save_part_as or other export tools. There is no guidance on exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the format mentioned.

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