nx_export_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral outcome—a STEP export of the active part into a workspace—but does not mention potential side effects like file overwriting, naming behavior, or failure if no part is active. It is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: the action, the subject, the format, and the destination are all stated directly.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description still leaves the required 'path' parameter semantically ambiguous. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call without understanding whether path is a file name, a folder, or a workspace-relative location. The missing parameter guidance is a significant gap.

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 explain the required 'path' parameter beyond the schema's bare title. The phrase 'inside the configured workspace' hints at where the path resolves, but it does not clarify whether path is a filename, directory, relative path, or absolute path.

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 (export), a precise resource (active work part), a format (STEP), and a destination (configured workspace). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like nx_save_part or nx_release because it identifies the exact action and output type.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nx_save_part or nx_release. The description implies an export workflow but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions where a different tool should be chosen.

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