Toggles suppression of a named mate in a native SOLIDWORKS model and returns verified measurements plus error evidence.
Suppress mate 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 | ||
| suppress | 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 and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description adds little: it does not say the state change is reversible (via the suppress flag), whether suppression affects assembly resolution, or what 'error evidence' means practically. The units sentence is generic boilerplate and the diagnostics sentence is vague.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the second sentence about units is generic boilerplate and the third ('Inspect verified measurements and error evidence') is vague filler that does not earn its place.
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 tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, so the description carries most of the burden. It omits reversibility, prerequisites, and any explanation of the 'suppress' toggle, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.
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 two parameters, and the description does not explain either. Critically, the 'suppress' boolean defaulting to true (which enables un-suppressing) is never described, so an agent cannot learn from the text how to reverse the operation; only the implicit idea that 'name' identifies the mate comes through.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Suppress mate'), so an agent can identify the operation. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as delete_mate or suppress_feature, so the agent must infer that this targets assembly mates rather than features.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of delete_mate or suppress_feature as alternatives. Nothing indicates when suppressing is preferable to deleting a mate, nor what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.