Replace a component in a SOLIDWORKS assembly by specifying its name and path, and optionally reattach mates to maintain assembly relationships.
Replace component 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 | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| reattach_mates | 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. The description adds only a units convention (mm, degrees, kg) that is not clearly tied to this operation, plus a cryptic "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence"; it never says what existing component state, mates (see `reattach_mates`), or references get destroyed.
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?
The description is short and front-loads the operation, so it is not padded. However, the third sentence is vague boilerplate that conveys no actionable information, and no sentence is devoted to the details an agent actually needs.
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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should explain the replacement semantics, mate handling, and failure reporting. It instead supplies units trivia and an opaque reference to "error evidence," leaving the critical behavior undocumented.
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 three parameters, and the description does not mention `name`, `path`, or the `reattach_mates` default at all. With neither schema nor description explaining the parameters, an agent cannot tell whether `path` is a file path, whether it must match an existing document, or what happens to mates.
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?
"Replace component" essentially restates the tool name; what is being replaced and what it is replaced with (the `name`/`path` pair) is never stated. The only added information is engine attribution ("independent native SOLIDWORKS engine"), which does not clarify the operation itself.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools such as insert_component, delete_component, or set_component_transform, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.