rebuild

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so this operation can lose work, but the description never explains what is discarded, which features may fail, or what happens on error. The unit conventions (mm/degrees/kg) and the mention of "verified measurements and error evidence" add some value, but the destructive and non-idempotent profile is left entirely to the annotations.

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 redundant padding. The final clause about inspecting measurements and error evidence is slightly awkward in phrasing but does carry information.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is not adequate: it omits the meaning of top_only, the trigger conditions for rebuilding, and the consequences of the destructive flag. Only the unit conventions and the hint at returned measurements/errors are complete enough aspects.

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% and the single parameter (top_only) is never mentioned in the description, so an agent has no idea whether it limits the rebuild to the top-level document or to top-level features. The description fails to 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?

The description contains a specific verb ("Rebuild") and names the engine ("independent native SOLIDWORKS engine"), but never states the object being rebuilt — the part, the feature tree, or the whole document. It does not differentiate from any sibling tool, so an agent can only infer its role 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 indication of when to call rebuild versus alternatives, no prerequisite state (e.g. after editing dimensions or features), and no exclusions. The agent must guess that it is a post-edit recompute step.

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