Remove a named SOLIDWORKS feature via the native engine, optionally with child features or equations; use dry run to preview deletion and inspect verified measurements and errors.
Delete feature 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 | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| with_children | No | ||
| with_equations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does 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 covered structurally. The description adds little beyond that: the 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' phrasing is opaque, the units sentence is irrelevant to a deletion, and it never says whether deletion cascades to children or equations or is undoable. 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' is vague boilerplate that does not tell the agent what to check.
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?
It is short and front-loads the purpose, but two of the three sentences do not earn their place: the unit convention is irrelevant to deleting a feature, and the 'verified measurements and error evidence' line is too vague to be actionable.
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 destructive mutation with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the cascade flags and the dry-run behavior. Instead the agent must guess what with_equations and with_children do before performing an irreversible operation.
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?
All four parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The meaning of dry_run, with_children and with_equations is left entirely unexplained, which is critical for a destructive operation where the difference between a preview and a cascading permanent delete matters.
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 and resource ('Delete feature'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from obvious siblings such as suppress_feature, delete_component, delete_equation or delete_mate, and the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.
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 delete versus suppress a feature, no prerequisites, and no explanation of when the dry_run flag should be used before committing a destructive change. The only routing information an agent gets is the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.