Export Model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the vague phrase 'fixed CLI arguments' and does not explain side effects, output destination, permissions, or whether the export creates files or returns data.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The phrase 'fixed CLI arguments' is somewhat ambiguous, but the overall structure is appropriately concise.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, a long description is not necessary. Still, the description omits project_id semantics and any indication of what the export operation produces or where the output goes, leaving the agent to infer important context.

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%, so the description should compensate. It does list the output formats, which mirrors the output_format enum, but it does not clarify the meaning of project_id or explain how 'fixed CLI arguments' affects parameter behavior. The added value over the schema is minimal.

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 action (Export) and resource (model), and enumerates the supported output formats (STL, 3MF, OFF, AMF, DXF, SVG). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as read_model or render_preview.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a model needs to be exported in one of the listed formats. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention any alternative sibling tools.

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