sw_export_flat_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds nothing about what is destroyed — presumably an existing target file — nor about write permissions, directory creation, or what the tool returns on success. For a file-writing operation the description is silent on all behavior beyond format.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the usability details noted elsewhere — it is concise rather than padded.

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 no output schema and no annotations beyond the safety flags, the description should say what happens on success (file written where? path returned?), that the part must be sheet metal, and what bend_lines controls. None of that is present, so an agent calling this tool has significant unknowns.

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 75%, just under the threshold where the schema alone suffices; the undocumented parameter is bend_lines, which the description ignores entirely. It does implicitly clarify the path parameter by naming the accepted formats (DXF/DWG), but it says nothing about doc selection, overwrite semantics, or bend-line inclusion.

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 states the resource (flat pattern) and the output formats (DXF/DWG), which cleanly separates it from generic siblings like sw_export and sw_batch_export and from sw_flat_pattern, which presumably creates the flat pattern in-model. The verb 'export' is only implied by the tool name rather than written in the description, keeping it just 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 phrase 'for laser / waterjet cutting' hints at the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., the document must be a sheet-metal part with a flat pattern), and no routing to alternatives such as sw_export or sw_flat_pattern. An agent must infer the selection logic entirely.

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