Create a native SOLIDWORKS rib from start, end, and direction points plus thickness and height in millimeters, then inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
Add rib 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 | Rib | |
| z_mm | Yes | ||
| end_mm | Yes | ||
| start_mm | Yes | ||
| toward_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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds real value with the unit convention (mm, degrees, kg) and the note to inspect verified measurements and error evidence, which is the only hint at return content given there is no output schema. It still omits what the operation requires (an open part, a valid sketch/plane reference) and what happens on failure.
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. Minor waste: "degrees and kg" are irrelevant to a tool with no angular or mass parameters.
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, 5-required-parameter geometry mutation with zero schema documentation and no output schema, so the description should explain the coordinate/vector model and result reporting. Instead it offers only units and a vague pointer to "verified measurements and error evidence," leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call with confidence.
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 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It clarifies that lengths are in mm (matching the _mm suffixes) but leaves the meaning of start_mm, end_mm and toward_mm — each a 2-element array — completely unexplained: are they 2D points, direction vectors, or sketch coordinates? The non-obvious z_mm and thickness_mm roles are also unaddressed.
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 rib" gives a verb and a resource, and the phrase "through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" identifies the execution backend. However, it never says what geometric rib is being created (a thin wall along a path between two points, extruded toward a direction with a given thickness), so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like add_extruded_profile or add_boss_on_face beyond the word "rib".
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative among the ~80 siblings. The only implied usage is that it adds a rib to an existing part, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.