sw_export

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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and destructive (it writes files), so the bar is lower, but the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the format list. It omits that output must land in an allowed folder, that overwrite triggers a user confirmation, and what the destination defaulting behavior is — all of which matter for a file-writing tool.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. However, the terseness is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and a destructive write operation, the description leaves key questions unanswered: where the file goes, what happens on failure, whether the document must be open first, and how this differs from batch export. For a mutation tool with no return-value documentation, more was required.

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 80% and the 'file_format' enum is self-documenting; the description merely echoes the format enum values. The format-name mapping (e.g. Parasolid, DXF/DWG, PNG/JPG) confirms which enum entry corresponds to which CAD format, which is mildly useful, but nothing is said about path, doc, or stl_quality semantics. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

A specific verb (export) plus the resource ('a copy') plus the full format list makes the intent unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like sw_batch_export, sw_export_flat_pattern, or sw_save, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when this tool should be chosen over sw_batch_export (multiple files), sw_export_flat_pattern (sheet metal), or sw_screenshot/sw_print_check. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no conditions are given; the agent must infer routing from the format list alone.

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