Create a native SOLIDWORKS box from width, height, and depth in millimeters, then inspect verified measurements and error evidence for the generated geometry.
Add box through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | BlockExtrude | |
| depth_mm | Yes | ||
| width_mm | Yes | ||
| height_mm | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations lack: it runs through an "independent native SOLIDWORKS engine", uses mm/degrees/kg public units, and surfaces verified measurements plus error evidence. However, it never explains why an "add" operation is flagged destructive or what existing state it affects, which is the key behavioral question left open.
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?
Three short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The closing sentence about inspecting measurements is slightly vague but still earns its place as workflow guidance.
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?
This is a mutating geometry-creation tool with four parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema. The description covers units and hints at verification, but leaves the `name` parameter, dimension constraints, target document, and result shape undocumented — significant gaps for a destructive operation.
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 the parameter burden, and it only partially does: the "public geometry units are mm" line confirms the unit convention for width/height/depth. It says nothing about the optional `name` parameter (default "BlockExtrude"), nor about the exclusiveMinimum > 0 constraint on the three dimensions.
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 ("Add box") and names the execution engine, so an agent can tell it apart from add_cylinder, add_cone, or add_disc by the shape keyword alone. It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this versus add_extruded_profile, extrude_sketch, or the other solid-creation siblings, and no prerequisites such as an active document being required. "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" hints at a post-call verification workflow but gives no condition for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.