Changes a named SolidWorks dimension to a numeric value (mm, degrees, or count) and rebuilds the model to apply the update.
Changes a dimension (name from get_dimensions, e.g. "D1@Boss-Extrude1") to 'value' (mm, degrees for angles, a plain number for counts such as pattern instances) and rebuilds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| value | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing that the model is rebuilt after the change. It stops short of saying what happens when the name is wrong or the rebuild fails (e.g. downstream feature breakage), which matters for a destructive edit.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the identifier format, with the unit rules folded into a parenthetical that earns its space. No restatement of the tool title or filler.
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 and rich annotations cover the return value and safety profile, and the description covers sourcing the name, units, and the rebuild side effect. The remaining gap is error/failure behavior and whether the value is absolute rather than a delta.
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 carry both parameters and it does: 'name' is defined by format and provenance, and 'value' is defined by unit depending on dimension type (mm, degrees for angles, unitless for pattern counts). That is exactly the information an agent cannot infer from the bare number/string types.
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?
Specific verb ('Changes') plus resource ('a dimension') plus the exact identifier syntax used by the CAD API ("D1@Boss-Extrude1"). Naming get_dimensions as the source of the name makes it unambiguously distinct from the sibling tools that create dimensions (add_sketch_dimension, insert_model_dimensions).
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 gives the prerequisite workflow implicitly but clearly: the dimension name must come from get_dimensions. It does not, however, exclude or contrast with the dimension-creating siblings (add_sketch_dimension, insert_model_dimensions) or sketching-time dimensioning, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.