Export CAD format

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse title-only annotation: exports are handled by a server-side translation service and are queued, making them slower than STL. This warns the agent about latency and async behavior. It does not mention return values or side effects, but the disclosed queuing trait is genuinely useful.

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 deliver the core purpose, supported formats, and a key behavioral caveat with no filler. The format list is front-loaded and the latency note is placed after the main purpose, making the description easy to scan.

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 tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and latency behavior, and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a job status, output path, or confirmation), which the agent would need since no output schema is present.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters, including doc/ws/elem and format examples. The description's format list mostly duplicates the schema's format example and adds no additional parameter-level detail or constraints, so the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Export through Onshape's translation service') and enumerates the relevant formats (STEP, IGES, 3MF, PARASOLID, SOLIDWORKS). It also distinguishes itself from the STL export path by explicitly noting that this path is slower, which helps an agent separate it from the onshape_export_stl sibling.

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 description gives clear usage context by listing supported CAD formats and contrasting the queued translation service with STL. It does not explicitly name onshape_export_stl as the alternative for STL exports, but the comparison is concrete enough for an agent to infer the appropriate selection.

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