export_cad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the destructive overwrite semantics ('the old file is deleted first, so a failed export loses it'), the precondition that the directory must exist, the extension/format coupling, and that exporting does not save the document. It even documents the return payload.

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 action and formats, followed by preconditions, then the overwrite caveat, then return shape and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return structure ({files, format, scope}), covers all four parameters' preconditions, and gives a usage example — an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 adds meaning beyond it by explaining the format/extension fallback, the overwrite-before-write risk, and what scope resolves to in the return value. It does not restate everything, which is appropriate.

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 ('Export the design, a component or an occurrence') and enumerates every supported format (STEP, IGES, SAT, SMT, F3D, USDZ). An agent can distinguish this from export_mesh or export_sketch_dxf without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes away from document_save ('Exporting does not save the document (document_save does)') and the schema notes bodies are not allowed here, use export_mesh. It also states the path/extension preconditions. Missing an explicit statement of when not to export at all, so not a full 5.

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