rupa_cad_ekspor

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: triangle exports always deviate regardless of tolerance, and the error/deviation is reported. It also warns that a success message without a numeric error is untrustworthy. The destructive hint is not contradicted because writing a file is consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 dense and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement, a structured format list, and a useful warning. The phrase 'dan tidak disebut pesan galat mana pun' is slightly cryptic, but no sentence is purely filler.

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, so the description must convey expected return behavior; the numeric-error warning helps but does not fully define the response. Details such as overwriting existing files and the exact structure of reported errors are missing, leaving the description adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds useful context about extension categories and tolerance behavior, but it does not substantially clarify nama or ruang 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 'Tulis bentuk ke berkas' (write shape to file) and distinguishes exact B-rep formats from triangle mesh formats. It is specific about the resource and output categories, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative like rupa_ekspor.

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 gives concrete format-selection guidance: .step/.iges for CAD/CNC and .stl/.glb/.obj for web/print. The warning that triangle formats always deviate also helps the agent choose exact formats where precision matters. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools explicitly.

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