export_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the format. It does not say whether an existing file at that path is overwritten, whether the whole part or only visible/selected bodies are written, whether it requires an open part, or what it returns on success or failure. Only the AP214 fidelity detail is genuinely extra context.

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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the source of the missing guidance rather than a sign of well-packed information.

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 one-parameter export tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers the core action adequately. What it omits — overwrite semantics, scope of what gets exported, and error/return behavior — are exactly the things an agent would want before calling a file-writing tool.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states it is an absolute path ending in .stp or .step. The description adds nothing about the path argument, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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?

"Export the work part as a STEP file (AP214)" states a specific verb (export), a specific resource (the work part), and even the target format variant (AP214). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling export_stl, so the agent must infer which export is appropriate from the format alone.

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 only contextual hint is "work part," which implies the currently active part rather than an arbitrary body. There is no statement of when to pick STEP over STL, no prerequisites (e.g. an open part), and no exclusions. The agent gets a format name but no routing guidance.

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