add_swept_profile

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent behavior, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful context (unit system in mm/degrees/kg and that verified measurements plus error evidence are surfaced for inspection), but it does not say what geometry is created or destroyed, whether the operation is reversible, or what the evidence looks like.

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 and followed by unit conventions and the inspection hint. No filler, though the second and third sentences read as boilerplate that could be tightened.

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 geometry mutation with nested point arrays, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, yet the description leaves the parameter structure and the returned verification/error evidence entirely unexplained. For a tool of this complexity it does far too little to prepare the agent for a correct call.

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 it does partially by stating that public geometry units are mm, which annotates profile_mm, path_mm, bend_radius_mm, and corner_radii_mm. It still says nothing about the point-array structure (3+ profile points, 2+ path points), the meaning of bend_radius defaulting to 0, or that corner_radii accepts a scalar or per-corner array.

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 description uses a specific verb and resource ("Add swept profile") and signals that this builds geometry natively in SOLIDWORKS via the profile/path pair. It does not differentiate from the obvious sibling add_swept_pipe, so an agent must infer that distinction, but the core purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over add_swept_pipe, add_lofted_solid, add_revolved_profile, or the sketch-based extrude/sweep tools. Nothing states prerequisites such as needing closed profile geometry or how it differs from the pipe variant.

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