add_full_round

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the units convention (mm/degrees/kg) and a hint that measurements are verified with error evidence, but it never states what existing geometry is consumed or modified, what happens on failure, or whether the operation requires a selected face from list_faces.

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?

Two short sentences with the units stated up front, so there is little waste. However, 'through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' and 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' are vague filler that consumes the limited space without conveying actionable meaning.

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 destructive mutation tool with five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no clarification of return or error behavior. For a geometry-creation call whose correctness depends on how 'face' and the coordinates are supplied, the description leaves the essential calling details missing.

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 carry the load and does not. It never explains how 'face' is identified (name, index, reference from list_faces) or what the x_mm/y_mm/z_mm triple represents — a point, a direction, or a radius/offset — leaving the required coordinate parameters semantically empty.

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?

The verb 'add' plus 'full round' names a resource, but 'full round' is domain jargon and the description never says what geometry (a corner fill between faces?) is produced. It also fails to distinguish this from close siblings such as add_fillet and add_chamfer, so an agent cannot tell why it would pick this over them.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when a full round is preferred over add_fillet, nor any prerequisite such as an active document, an existing body, or valid face identifiers. The only usable hint is the units convention.

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