rebuild_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that failures surface as an error containing data.errors with per-feature SolidWorks error codes, dependency chains, and a fix hint, and that warnings alone still succeed. It omits whether the call mutates geometry or requires an open/unsaved document, which leaves a gap for a write-like operation.

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 paragraphs: purpose first, then the usage trigger, then the failure contract. Every sentence contributes new information and nothing is redundant with the name.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still front-loads the one thing an agent must know to react correctly: errors carry structured per-feature diagnostics while warnings do not fail the call. For a zero-required-parameter rebuild tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter top_level_only is documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the assembly-scope flag or the full-rebuild default, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 ('Force a rebuild of the active model') plus a secondary outcome ('report what is wrong'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-scoped sibling verify_model, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: 'Use after programmatic edits (set_dimension, feature edits) to confirm the model rebuilds cleanly.' That is clear when-to-use guidance tied to named sibling operations. No explicit when-not or statement about preferring verify_model instead.

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