Export (unified)

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, which aligns with an export operation. The description adds useful behavioral details: auto-detection of format from file extension, and the conditional requirement for body_name. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and include all critical routing and requirement information. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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 wrapper with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, how it routes, and key constraints. It doesn't mention error handling or return values, but that's not required for a simple export tool. The default path is in the schema, so that's covered.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying the body_name condition ('F3D exports the whole design') and reiterating the auto-detection logic. It doesn't fully compensate for any gaps, but it enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 it's a unified export wrapper that dispatches to specific export tools (export_stl, export_step, export_f3d) based on format or extension. It names the exact resources and behavior, distinguishing it from siblings. The verb 'dispatches' is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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?

It explains the routing logic (format or extension) and explicitly states the requirement for body_name for STL/STEP and that F3D exports the whole design. This gives clear when-to-use context and parameter conditions. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the specific export tools, but the wrapper concept implies it can be used interchangeably, which is sufficient.

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