export_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does add real behavioral detail: it writes per-sheet files, preserves curve types (arcs/splines stay curves), and refuses invalid layouts as an error path. It omits whether it overwrites existing files, creates out_dir, permissions, or what it returns.

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?

Two sentences, verb front-loaded, no filler. The only weakness is the awkward 'or preserving LBRN2' clause that momentarily obscures the format options.

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?

A complex, deeply nested request schema with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description never explains return values (file paths? manifest?) or the failure mode beyond 'refuses invalid layouts'. Given the missing structured fields, it does not do enough.

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?

At 50% schema description coverage, layout_path and library_path are undocumented and the description compensates for none of it. It only loosely maps to the format option (svg/dxf/lbrn2) without clarifying out_dir, request, or sheet_outline semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Write') and resource (per-sheet SVG/DXF or LBRN2 files for a layout), so the export intent is clear. However, the phrasing 'or preserving LBRN2' is grammatically muddled and it never contrasts itself with siblings like validate_layout or nest.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as validate_layout. The clause 'for a valid layout' implies a precondition (the layout must already be valid) but never tells the agent to validate first or what to do otherwise.

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