Set native SOLIDWORKS equations to drive model dimensions and parameters, then verify results with mm, degree, and kg measurements and error evidence.
Set equations through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| equations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is lower, but the description adds almost nothing: it does not say whether existing equations are replaced or appended, whether a rebuild is required, or whether the operation can fail mid-way. The unit sentence (mm/degrees/kg) and the "inspect verified measurements and error evidence" line are generic boilerplate that describe outputs obliquely rather than mutation behavior.
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 no filler, but they are not front-loaded around the actual action and payload; the final sentence about inspecting measurements reads like a dangling instruction and dilutes the core statement.
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?
A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and a completely undocumented array parameter needs far more than this. An agent cannot construct a valid call payload or predict side effects from the definition as written.
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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter "equations" is an untyped array with items {} — the description offers no clue about element format (strings such as "D1@Sketch1"=value, objects, expression syntax) despite this being the one thing an agent must get right. The only hint, that units default to mm/degrees/kg, is marginally relevant but does not compensate for the complete absence of structure information.
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 verb+resource pair ("Set equations") is identifiable, but the description never explains what an equation is in this context or how a bulk "set_equations" differs from the sibling "set_equation" or relates to "list_equations"/"delete_equation". The phrase "independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" is positioning language rather than a functional statement.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus the singular set_equation, list_equations, or set_dimension. There are no prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent must infer the choice entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.