sw_export_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the source is the active document, but says nothing about overwrite behavior if the path exists, required permissions, whether the document must be saved first, or error/failure modes. For a file-writing operation this is a significant gap.

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 and target format front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must cover behavior for a write-to-disk tool, and it does not mention overwrite risk, path validation, or return information. An agent calling this could easily clobber an existing file without warning.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The schema already specifies 'Ruta absoluta .STEP', and the description adds no further meaning (e.g., whether the extension is mandatory or auto-appended), so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (exporta) and resource (el documento activo) plus the target format (STEP), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling sw_save_as, which also writes the active document out.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus sw_save_as or sw_execute_script, no prerequisites (document must be open), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the trigger condition from the name alone.

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