Draw a straight slot in the open sketch by specifying the two end centers and width in millimeters, enabling accurate slot geometry for SolidWorks parts.
Draws a straight slot (two half circles joined by lines) in the open sketch, given the centres of its two ends and its width (mm).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x1_mm | Yes | ||
| x2_mm | Yes | ||
| y1_mm | Yes | ||
| y2_mm | Yes | ||
| width_mm | Yes | Slot width/diameter in mm |
| 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 this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent edit confined to the model (openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it operates on the currently open sketch and uses mm units, but it does not say what happens if no sketch is active, whether a new sketch is created, or how the created geometry is returned.
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 verb and shape, then the interpretation of the parameters. No filler or redundancy.
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 not be explained, and the geometry/units are covered. However, for a stateful sketch-editing tool the description omits the active-sketch precondition detail and any failure mode, leaving gaps an agent may hit in practice.
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 coverage is only 20% (just width_mm), so the description must compensate — and it does meaningfully: x1/y1/x2/y2 are identified as the centres of the two slot ends rather than generic points, which is a real semantic detail absent from the bare 'X1 Mm' schema titles. It still leaves the pairing/units per coordinate implicit, so not a 5.
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 and resource ('Draws a straight slot') and even defines the geometry (two half circles joined by lines), which distinguishes it from sibling primitives like sketch_rectangle and sketch_circle by shape. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
'In the open sketch' implies the prerequisite that a sketch must already be active, but there is no explicit guidance such as 'call start_sketch first' or when to prefer a slot over an offset/rectangle. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.