Assign a material by name, with optional database and density, to a native SOLIDWORKS model for accurate mass properties and validation.
Set material 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 | ||
| database | No | ||
| density_kg_m3 | 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 and idempotentHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds only a generic unit statement (mm/degrees/kg) and an opaque "inspect verified measurements and error evidence," which does not say what a material set overwrites, what happens if the material is not found, or whether density overrides the library value.
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, so nothing is bloated, but the second and third sentences read as boilerplate: a global unit note and a vague "inspect verified measurements" clause rather than guidance specific to setting material.
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?
This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and zero documented parameters, so the description should define name format, database semantics, density precedence, and failure behavior. It supplies none of that, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently beyond guessing.
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% for three parameters, so the description must carry the load. The "kg" unit mention loosely hints at density_kg_m3, but the required "name" and the "database" parameter (presumably a material library) are completely unexplained, leaving two of three parameters ambiguous.
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?
"Set material" names a verb and resource, and the SOLIDWORKS-engine mention scopes it to native parts. But it never says what "name" refers to (a material name like "Aluminum 6061"? a document?), and nothing separates it from adjacent tools such as set_appearance or set_dimension.
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 call this, whether a part must be open/active first, or what the alternative is for changing appearance or overriding mass. The description offers no conditions or exclusions at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.