sheet_metal_export_flat_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the file-writing side effect, that an existing file is only replaced with overwrite=true, the preview-API limitation for STEP, the specific error code and its remedy, and the exact return shape. That is substantially more than the schema provides.

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?

Purpose and formats are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by constraints, errors, return shape, and a concrete example. Tight overall, though the example line adds bulk for a required parameter already obvious from the schema.

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 10-parameter, annotation-free export tool, the description covers prerequisites, format quirks, overwrite behavior, failure modes, and even inlines the response shape in place of the missing output schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether STEP also requires a pre-existing flat pattern.

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 each of the 10 parameters is already documented, including the DXF-only prefixes on bend_lines, extent_lines and splines_to_polylines. The description's mention of "bend / extent lines, file units, optional spline-to-polyline" largely restates that, so this is baseline territory.

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 a component's flat pattern") plus the two output formats. This is clearly distinct from siblings like export_cad, export_sketch_dxf and export_mesh, which the agent can rule out from the description alone.

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 real guidance: STEP relies on the preview API and may return api_unavailable, and a missing flat pattern yields ENTITY_NOT_FOUND with an explicit redirect to sheet_metal_create_flat_pattern. It does not explicitly contrast DXF vs STEP selection criteria (other than the extension default), so it stops short of a 5.

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