Export STL

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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully explains that STL is unitless and that millimetres match slicer assumptions, but says nothing about file-writing side effects (overwrite behavior of `out`, partial-write failure) or auth requirements for a tool that produces a file on disk.

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 short sentences with zero padding; the format and unit default are front-loaded. The closing line 'Measure the model before exporting it' is advice rather than an instruction about this tool and is slightly cryptic, but it is compact.

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?

Eight parameters with 3 required, no output schema and no safety annotations — the description covers the one parameter with real semantic ambiguity (units) and the tool's purpose. It leaves resolution/ascii/configuration guidance and the shape of the return value unexplained, which is acceptable given the full schema coverage but not ideal for an 8-parameter tool.

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 earns above that by explaining the semantics of `units` beyond the enum and default — why millimetres is the safe choice and when a consumer would want otherwise. The remaining parameters (resolution, ascii, configuration) get no added meaning in the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the output format: 'Export the Part Studio as STL'. This distinguishes it in practice from onshape_export_drawing and the generic onshape_export, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a conditional rule for the `units` parameter ('only change `units` if the consumer expects otherwise') and an advisory to measure first, which implies calling onshape_measure. It offers no explicit when-not guidance and never points to an alternative export tool for non-STL needs.

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