Export Flat Pattern DXF

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the write/no-destroy profile is covered. The description usefully adds the prerequisite dependency on flat_pattern, but says nothing about file overwrite behavior, default output location, or what happens when the body has no flat pattern — notable gaps given idempotentHint=false.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, resource and format, with the prerequisite appended in parentheses. Zero wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation, leaving the agent without return values (e.g., resulting file path), path semantics, or error conditions. For a file-producing, non-idempotent tool with 0% schema coverage, the definition is too thin.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only loosely implies body_name (a sheet metal body) and file_path (a DXF destination); it never states that body_name must be an existing sheet-metal body with a generated flat pattern, nor whether file_path is a full filename or a directory, or what the default is.

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 (export), a specific resource (the flat pattern of a sheet metal body), and a concrete output format (DXF), plus the downstream intent (laser/plasma/waterjet cutting). This clearly separates it from the many sibling export_* tools (export_stl, export_step, export_f3d, export_view_sheet), which handle different artifacts.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition 'run flat_pattern first', which is exactly the routing information an agent needs before calling. It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., non-sheet-metal bodies), so it falls short of a 5.

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