export_f3dExport a Fusion 360 design as a native .f3d archive file, saving the complete model and feature history to a specified destination path.
Export the design as a native Fusion 360 archive (.f3d)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No | Destination path (default: ~/Desktop/<design_name>.f3d) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it exports to a specific file format (.f3d), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like file system changes or authentication needs.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and format.
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 tool with one parameter (fully documented in schema), no output schema, and annotations covering key behavioral hints, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage context or output behavior.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'file_path' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Export') and the resource ('the design'), specifying the output format ('native Fusion 360 archive (.f3d)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'export_step' and 'export_stl' by specifying the .f3d format.
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 'export_step' or 'export_stl' is provided. The description states what it does but not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.