Creates a native SOLIDWORKS disc from diameter and thickness inputs in millimeters, then returns verified measurements and error evidence for validation.
Add disc 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 | Disc | |
| x_mm | No | ||
| y_mm | No | ||
| diameter_mm | Yes | ||
| thickness_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 this a destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts: public geometry units (mm/degrees/kg) and that the result includes verified measurements and error evidence. It still omits which document/body is modified 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 action front-loaded and no filler. The closing sentence about inspecting measurements and error evidence is somewhat cryptic but carries real information.
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 five-parameter, zero-coverage mutation tool with no output schema, the description answers almost none of the questions an agent would have: target document, positional semantics, and what the response contains. Units and an error-evidence hint are not enough to call it safely.
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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies units for the dimensional fields but says nothing about x_mm/y_mm (presumably the disc center location), the name default, or how the two required fields relate to each other.
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?
"Add disc" names a specific verb and resource, and the mention of the native SOLIDWORKS engine establishes the modeling context. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby primitives like add_cylinder, add_cone, or add_extruded_profile, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
The description never states when to use this instead of add_cylinder, add_extruded_profile, or add_revolved_profile, nor does it state prerequisites such as an active document. The only usage-adjacent signal is the unit convention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.