suppress_feature

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the engine is 'independent native SOLIDWORKS' and that results carry 'verified measurements and error evidence', which tells the agent something about the response, but it omits that suppression is reversible via the boolean and what state the feature is left in.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, which is good, and only three short sentences. However, the middle sentence about geometry units (mm, degrees, kg) is irrelevant to a tool with no numeric parameters, so it spends space without earning it.

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 parameter documentation, so the description needs to explain reversibility, the feature-name target, and what the returned error evidence looks like. It gestures at 'error evidence' but leaves the calling contract under-specified.

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% for two parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It never explains that 'name' identifies the feature to suppress (or its expected format) nor that 'suppress' defaults to true and can be set false to unsuppress — the single most consequential ambiguity for this tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: suppress a feature via a native SOLIDWORKS engine. An agent can identify the operation, but the description never distinguishes it from close siblings like delete_feature or suppress_mate, nor does it note that the pairing with the 'suppress' boolean implies the opposite (unsuppress) operation.

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 suppress versus delete a feature or suppress a mate, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to set 'suppress' to false. The agent is left to infer usage entirely 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.