add_extruded_slot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value with the unit convention (mm/degrees/kg) and the note that results include verified measurements and error evidence, but it never says what the slot actually removes or adds, whether it cuts an existing body, or that repeated calls stack new features.

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, front-loaded with the action, so it is easy to scan. However 'through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is positioning language rather than actionable information, and 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' is vague about what is returned.

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?

A destructive five-parameter geometry mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation needs more: which document/body the slot targets, whether it is a cut or a boss, and how the two point parameters define the slot. The unit note is the only substantive addition, leaving an agent likely to guess at placement semantics.

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 carries the burden. It explains that lengths are mm, which anchors start_mm/end_mm/width_mm/depth_mm, but it never clarifies that start_mm and end_mm are 2D 2-element coordinate pairs (centerline endpoints) or what depth means relative to the body. Units alone do not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('add extruded slot') and tells the agent the operation is performed by the native SOLIDWORKS engine rather than a mesh proxy. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as cut_slot, extrude_sketch, or add_extruded_profile, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these to pick.

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 guidance on when to use this versus cut_slot or extract_sketch-style siblings, and no prerequisites (active document, which body/plane the slot is placed on). The only implicit guidance is the trailing hint to inspect measurements and error evidence after the call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.