export_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — that save_first saves the board before export, a side effect worth knowing — but says nothing about overwrite behavior, required permissions, or what the tool writes beyond the destination path.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a tight Args block; no waste. The Args format is a docstring convention rather than prose, but it is efficient and readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both parameters are covered in the description despite 0% schema coverage. It is adequate for a simple two-parameter export, with only minor gaps around failure/overwrite behavior.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: it explains output_path as the destination .step/.stp file and save_first as a pre-export save. It adds meaning beyond the bare property names, though it omits the save_first default value already encoded in 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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (3D STEP model of the open PCB), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling exports like export_gerbers, export_pdf, export_svg, export_pos and from render_3d. An agent can pick it out without opening any schema.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternative (render_3d) or related exports. The agent is left to infer that this is the STEP-specific export path.

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