Activate Fusion's Manufacture workspace and create a milling setup with relative-box stock and box-point WCS origin, without selecting machine or fixtures.
Activate Manufacture and create a milling setup with relative-box stock and a box-point WCS origin. Machine and fixtures are not automatically selected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes | ||
| document_id | Yes | ||
| operation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two meaningful traits: it activates the Manufacture workspace and does not auto-select machine/fixtures. However, it omits side effects on existing setups, prerequisites, and failure/error behavior, so transparency is partial.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the most important caveat. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description covers the core workflow start (activation) and a key limitation (no machine/fixtures), but leaves operation_id unexplained, does not state prerequisites like an active design document or CAM availability, and gives no return/validation expectations. With no output schema, this gap is noticeable.
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. It adds high-level mapping hints: 'relative-box stock' relates to top_stock/side_stock and 'box-point WCS origin' relates to the origin enum. Yet it does not explain document_id, operation_id, or how spec fields should be populated, leaving the agent to rely on self-explanatory names.
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 action ('create a milling setup') with precise stock and WCS details ('relative-box stock', 'box-point WCS origin') and confirms workspace activation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling fusion_cam_create_operation, which targets operations, not setups.
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 CAM workflow context ('Activate Manufacture') but never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of fusion_cam_create_operation or other CAM siblings. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided; the machine/fixtures caveat is more of a behavioral note than usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.