fusion_export_step

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

The description says 'Export the whole design', which is non-destructive and aligns with annotations (destructiveHint: false, readOnlyHint: false). However, it adds no further behavioral context such as file overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or output format details beyond the annotation baseline.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. However, it omits crucial parameter details, which would improve clarity without significantly increasing length.

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 simple export tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fails to specify the meaning of the 'path' parameter or the behavior when it is null. It also lacks guidance on file destination or format specifics, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter 'path' with no description, and the parameter coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameter's purpose or default behavior (e.g., where the file is saved if path is null). This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool exports the entire design to STEP format, naming the specific file extension and asserting its suitability for CAD interchange. This provides a specific verb (Export) and resource (design to STEP), distinguishing it from sibling export tools like DXF, F3D, IGES, and STL.

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 implies usage for CAD interchange (mentioning 'best for CAD interchange') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like DXF or STL. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons with siblings is provided.

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