export_model

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions license/converters availability; it does not disclose that this creates or writes a file, how overwrite behaves, whether failures are likely, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is very short and front-loads the primary action and formats. The second sentence about availability is relevant and earns its place, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important details.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-line description is not enough to safely invoke the tool. It leaves unclear how the format is chosen, what path should look like, whether overwrite must be true to replace files, and what the tool returns or how it signals failure.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining document_id, path, or overwrite. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no guidance is given about expected path format, file extension conventions, or how the export format is determined.

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 starts with the verb 'Export' and names the resource ('model') plus supported formats (STEP/STL/IGES), so the basic purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like save_model or save_document, but the format-specific export intent is evident.

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 provides a meaningful usage condition: availability depends on installed KOMPAS license/converters. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over save_model, save_document, or other output-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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