Export STL

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a non-destructive read/export and hints at a measurement prerequisite, but it does not state side effects, output destination, whether the file is written locally or returned, auth requirements, or why measuring matters. The 'measure before exporting' instruction is ambiguous about the underlying behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place as a workflow tip, though its cryptic wording slightly reduces the value of an otherwise compact definition.

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?

With no output schema, only a title annotation, and 8 parameters, the description should clarify what the export produces and how defaults like units/resolution behave. It leaves an agent uncertain about return values, file handling, and the reason for the measurement prerequisite, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented with their own descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 (Part Studio), and format (STL) with a clear use case (3D printing). This specificity distinguishes it from the sibling onshape_export and onshape_export_drawing, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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 'for 3D printing' clause gives clear usage context, and the second sentence adds a workflow pre-step ('Measure the model before exporting it'). However, it names no alternatives or exclusion conditions versus the generic onshape_export sibling, leaving some selection judgment to the agent.

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