export_stl

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

Annotations already signal non-read-only and destructive behavior. The description adds a specific failure mode: it errors if the host Max has no matching exporter. This is useful operational context beyond the schema and does not contradict the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action and intended use, with no filler. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but acceptable for an international tool and does not harm clarity.

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 2-parameter export command with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the action, file path, selection scope, and the main failure condition. It does not describe return values or overwrite behavior, but those are partially covered by annotations and the tool's nature.

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 fully documents path as a required output file path and selected as defaulting to true. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource (STL), and adds the intended use cases of 3D printing / reverse engineering. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling exporters like export_obj, export_fbx, and export_gltf.

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 provides clear usage context by identifying STL as common for 3D printing / reverse engineering, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative exporters for other formats or state when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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