Create a native SOLIDWORKS cone from bottom diameter, top diameter, and height in millimeters, then inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
Add cone 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 | Revolve | |
| height_mm | Yes | ||
| top_diameter_mm | Yes | ||
| bottom_diameter_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 readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful context — that geometry uses a native SOLIDWORKS engine and that results include verified measurements and error evidence — but omits what gets modified in the document and whether an existing body is affected.
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 core action front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence about measurements and error evidence is a bit vague but does not bloat the text.
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 destructive solid-creation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves significant gaps: no statement of required document state, of what is created or replaced, or of parameter interpretation. The unit declaration is the only substantive addition.
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% and none of the four parameters are named in the description. The unit statement (mm, degrees, kg) gives partial meaning to the numeric fields, but it does not clarify the relationship between bottom_diameter and top_diameter (e.g. whether a zero top diameter yields a true cone) or the role of the name default.
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 a cone) and names the underlying engine, making it distinguishable from siblings like add_cylinder or add_disc. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the resource name is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. requires an active part document), and no mention of alternatives such as add_cylinder or add_revolved_profile. The agent must infer context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.