export_sketch_dxf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonable work: it discloses the FUSION_API_ERROR failure mode for unsupported Fusion builds and documents the exact return payload shape. It doesn't mention prerequisites like an active document or DXF units/scale, and the overwrite/delete-existing behavior is only in the schema, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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-loads the operation and use case in the first clause, then failure mode and return shape. The inline example is compact and useful, though the three-part sentence structure plus example is slightly more than strictly needed.

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 3-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return payload, failure mode, and path conventions — enough to call it correctly. Missing only secondary details such as required document state and output units.

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 all three parameters including the destructive overwrite note are already documented in structured data. The description adds only the worked example and the 'same path rules as export_cad' cross-reference, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Write a sketch to a DXF file') plus an intended use case ('e.g. for laser cutting'), which immediately separates it from export_cad (CAD geometry) and export_mesh. An agent can tell what it produces 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?

Gives a concrete condition for use (laser cutting) and routes path-convention questions to the sibling export_cad ('Same path rules as export_cad'), which is a useful cross-reference. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer export_cad/export_mesh over this tool, so it's clear context without full exclusions.

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