export_part_as_step

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'export it as STEP file' without specifying what happens (e.g., download, save to server, return link). No mention of prerequisites or effects on the part. Lacks transparency for a mutation-like action.

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 concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It is front-loaded with the purpose but omits critical details. It is not verbose, but could be expanded with key behavioral info.

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, the description fails to explain return values or output (no output schema). Given the sibling set includes multiple export and search tools, more context is needed for an agent to decide confidently.

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 100% (both parameters described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already provides names and enum for stepVersion. No additional constraints or format details.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'export' and resource 'part as STEP file', naming the system 'Windchill'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'creo_export_step', which likely does a similar export from Creo. The distinction is implied by 'Windchill' but could be clearer.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'creo_export_step' or 'find_part_and_open_in_creo'. The agent is left to infer from the description alone, which lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.

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