Place a multiline text note on a SolidWorks drawing sheet at a chosen XY position, defaulting above the title block, to add annotations, callouts, or labels to drawings.
A note on the sheet; at=[x, y] its top-left corner (sheet mm), by default above the title block. Lines: '\n'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| height_mm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations at all, so the description carries the full load, yet it only discloses the default placement ('by default above the title block'). For a mutation tool it says nothing about required document state, whether the note joins an annotation list, or how it can later be edited or removed.
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?
Very short with no filler, but the telegraphic style ('Lines: \'\n\'.') borders on cryptic and the string reads as a fragment rather than a front-loaded purpose statement. Space saved is not redeployed on the undocumented height parameter.
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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves important gaps: sheet context requirements, the meaning of height_mm, and what the call returns. It is adequate only for an agent that already knows the drawing model.
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 does well for 'at' (top-left corner, sheet millimetres, default above title block) and for 'text' (newline handling), but 'height_mm' is never mentioned despite defaulting to 3.5 and plausibly meaning text height.
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?
Names the resource ('a note on the sheet') and implies creation via the tool name, and the positioning detail makes clear this places annotation text on a drawing sheet rather than a model face. It does not explicitly contrast with near neighbors like add_text_on_face, add_symbol, or add_table, so differentiation relies on inference from 'sheet'.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus add_text_on_face, add_symbol, add_table, or edit_annotation, and no prerequisites (does a drawing need to exist or be active?). The agent must infer usage entirely from the resource noun.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.