sheet_flat_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: DXF R12 ASCII, millimetre units, writing directly rather than through TechDraw, layer write semantics, and a full return-field breakdown. It does not address file-overwrite behavior, permissions, or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the core verb and artifact, then structured into layer/DXF/parameter/return blocks. A few marketing-flavoured clauses ('the deliverable the whole sheet-metal family exists to produce') are expendable but the bulk of the prose 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return object (path, size, layers, entities, flat_size, bends, k_factor, fidelity, warnings). The unresolved gaps are the undocumented `handle` argument and absent overwrite/error behavior, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the .dxf path constraint and cross-references k_factor/bend_table to sheet_unfold, which is useful, but `handle` is never explained and the cross-reference is indirect rather than defining the arguments.

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?

It names a specific verb+resource (write the flat pattern as a layered DXF) and frames the deliverable distinctly from the broader drawing/export siblings such as export_drawing and export_shape. The layer contract (CUT, BEND_UP, BEND_DOWN) further pins down what the artifact is.

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?

It clearly situates the tool as the terminal deliverable of the sheet-metal family and notes the `path` must end in .dxf, plus that k_factor/bend_table behave as in sheet_unfold. However, it never says when NOT to use it (e.g. versus export_shape for a generic solid export), so exclusions are left to inference.

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