Write the cut list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is externally provided. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the default scope ('default every one on this storey') and output formats, but it does not disclose whether writing overwrites an existing file or other side effects. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: it front-loads the primary action and resource, lists supported formats, then clarifies the ids parameter and the relationship to cut_list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 only two parameters, full schema documentation, an output schema, and annotations covering destructive/read-only hints, the description provides sufficient context: file formats, default ids scope, and the companion reader tool. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely mirrors the schema for path and ids, adding only the context that ids refer to joinery builds and hand-drawn groups and that .dxf means 'boards laid out on sheets'. This is marginal added value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Write the cut list of joinery builds (and of groups drawn by hand) to a file'. It enumerates the exact output formats (.csv, .dxf, .svg) and differentiates from the sibling reader tool by noting 'The cut_list tool reads it.' An agent can clearly tell this tool writes cut lists rather than reading or displaying them.

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 context: use this tool to write cut lists to fileshare, and mentions that cut_list reads the generated output. This distinguishes the tool from its most closely related sibling, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it relates to other export tools like export_plan.

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