Export to a file

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the six format targets, A3 sheet sizing, scale semantics, and defaults. It never states that an existing file at `path` is overwritten, which is the one behavioral fact an agent would want for a destructive write.

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 operative clause ('Export to a file, by its extension') is front-loaded and the remainder is dense but purposeful, one sentence per `what` branch. The semicolon-chained extension lists are readable but slightly cluttered.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers both enum branches, all format options and their parameter dependencies. The only meaningful omission is overwrite/error behavior for the written file.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes further by binding parameters together, e.g. `path`'s extension determines the format, scale only applies to plan/.pdf with ''omitted fits the sheet'', and h/w are png-only. This adds cross-parameter meaning the per-field schema text does not convey.

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 (export) plus the exact resource set (plan drawing/3D model, joinery cut list) and the mechanism (extension picks format). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like render_plan, show_plan and cut_list, which produce views or data rather than files.

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?

Explicitly maps each `what` value to its valid extensions and what each format is for (pdf A3 with scale, svg true scale, glb/obj model, csv/dxf/svg sheets), which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer export over sibling tools such as render_plan or show_plan.

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