Create a new Autodesk Fusion design document in millimeters with parametric or hybrid intent, then start building and validating parts or assemblies.
Документ FCA_<имя>, Parametric, Hybrid, миллиметры.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| design_intent | No | hybrid |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no permissions needed, no side effects, no return format, no naming constraints.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It reads as a leftover fragment with no clear structure or front-loaded purpose.
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 creation tool with two parameters, zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, return behavior, naming rules, and any distinction from related creation/import tools.
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 for both parameters. It hints at naming via FCA_<имя> and possibly design_intent via 'Hybrid', but does not explain the design_intent parameter, its allowed values, or the role of name beyond a placeholder.
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 is a cryptic fragment naming a document format (FCA_<name>, Parametric, Hybrid, millimeters) rather than stating what the tool does. It does not clearly say 'create a new design document' nor distinguish this tool from sibling CAD-creation tools like import_cad_file.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name 'new_design'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.