mesh_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers unusually well: cell/condition ordering, the cell-data fields emitted, sub-model-part-to-cell-set mapping, format-specific element support, and refusal/warning behavior for wedge/pyramid cells. The gap is that it never states what happens when the target file already exists without overwrite=true, nor any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then organized around behavioral traits; nearly every sentence carries new information. It is a dense run-on paragraph rather than cleanly segmented, but there is little waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the description covers element ordering, data mapping and format limits thoroughly. It falls short only on the overwrite parameter's semantics and the source/target path roles, which an agent still needs before calling.

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%, so the description must define all five parameters. It meaningfully explains file_format ('chosen by the output extension or file_format') and linearize_unsupported ('writes their corner nodes only, the result carries a warnings entry'), but path, output and especially overwrite are left completely undefined.

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) and resource (.mdpa mesh), and immediately defines the scope: converting to the format dictated by the output extension or file_format. An agent can distinguish this from mesh_import, mdpa_extract and mdpa_merge without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied through the format-selection mechanism ('chosen by the output extension ... or file_format') and the format-compatibility caveats, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. mesh_import for the reverse direction). The agent must infer the context.

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