swept_region

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent mutation, but the description adds almost nothing beyond that. It never states what geometry is created or replaced, what existing features may be destroyed, or that repeated calls will produce different results. The "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" line hints at a validation/error payload, which is mild added value, but it also frames the tool as an inspection operation, pulling against the destructive annotation.

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, front-loaded with no filler or repetition. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance: the opening sentence conveys little and the closing sentence is vague about what "error evidence" means, so the compactness reads as under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 an 8-parameter, non-idempotent, destructive geometry operation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it safely or correctly. It should at minimum say what solid/region is produced, how values and heights_mm combine, and what the verification output contains.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. The only parameter-relevant information is the unit declaration (mm, degrees, kg), which helps interpret heights_mm, values, tolerance_mm and margin_mm, but component, dimension, axis and frame are entirely undefined, including what format "dimension" or "frame" strings should take.

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?

"Swept region through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" is a noun phrase with no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool creates a swept region, queries one, or measures one. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as add_swept_profile or add_swept_pipe, and the only concrete statement ("Inspect verified measurements and error evidence") describes output rather than purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance is given at all, despite a crowded sibling set containing add_swept_profile, add_swept_pipe, loft_sketches and pro_verify_volume that plausibly overlap. Nothing tells the agent what conditions select this tool over those alternatives, nor what prerequisites (component must exist, dimension/frame naming) are required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.