Sets a component's color and transparency using RGB values through the native SOLIDWORKS engine, with measurements in mm, degrees and kg.
Set appearance through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rgb | No | ||
| component | No | ||
| transparency | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and a write operation, so the safety bar is partly covered, but the description adds nothing about what is overwritten, whether the change is undoable, or what permissions/target document are required. The units sentence and 'inspect verified measurements and error evidence' read as generic boilerplate unrelated to appearance editing.
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, but two of the three sentences (units, 'inspect verified measurements and error evidence') do not appear to earn their place for an appearance-setting tool and dilute the one relevant clause. The relevant information is not front-loaded with any actionable detail.
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 three-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should describe target selection and overwrite behavior; instead it supplies generic engine/units boilerplate. An agent cannot reliably call this without guessing what rgb, component, and transparency apply to.
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 description never mentions rgb, component, or transparency. It does not explain the 0-255 RGB range, the 0-1 transparency range, or what 'component' scopes the appearance to, so none of the meaning is recovered from prose.
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 opening clause 'Set appearance' states a verb and resource, but it gives no indication of what kind of appearance (face, body, component, material?) or how it differs from siblings like pro_colorize or pro_visualize_appearances. The remaining sentences talk about units and measurements, which do not sharpen what the tool actually does.
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 exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (pro_colorize, pro_visualize_appearances, set_material) that an agent would need to discriminate between. The agent is left to infer trigger conditions entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.