Sheet Flat Export

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

The annotation already marks this as destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it writes a DXF R12 ASCII file directly, uses millimeters, requires the path to end in .dxf, and emits three named layers with specific content. It also lists the full return payload, including per-bend data and warnings, which goes well beyond the annotation surface.

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 long but structured with clear paragraphs: purpose, layer format, technical choices, parameters, and return value. Most sentences earn their place, and the most important information is front-loaded. The motivational sentence about the sheet-metal family is slightly extra but reinforces purpose rather than distracting.

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-writing tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it specifies format, units, layers, output payload, and key constraints. The main gap is the missing semantics of the required 'handle' parameter, and error/overwrite behavior is left mostly to the destructiveHint annotation. Overall, the description is strong and actionable.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains path must end in .dxf and points to sheet_unfold for k_factor/bend_table semantics, but it never describes the required 'handle' parameter at all. This partial compensation is useful but incomplete for a four-parameter tool.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Write the flat pattern as a LAYERED DXF,' and immediately states it is the shop deliverable for laser, punch, or press-brake work. It clearly differentiates the tool from drawing-oriented and unfold-related siblings by describing its exact output format and purpose.

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 explains when this tool matters: it produces the deliverable shops quote and cut from, not a drawing view. It contrasts with TechDraw-based drawing exports by saying the flat pattern should not have a sheet frame, scale, or title block, and it links parameter usage to sheet_unfold. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X.'

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