select_face_edges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the side effect of mutating global SolidWorks selection state and warns that anything else changing the selection (including a user click) invalidates the result. It does not state whether it requires an active/loaded document or how failures (no matching face) surface.

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 action, then the face-identification contract, then the downstream effect - a logical order. Some of the side/plane wording duplicates the schema, so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description covers face identification, the mutual-exclusivity constraint, filtering, and the stateful downstream contract with add_chamfer/add_fillet. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly in the workflow.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds the critical 'exactly one of point / side / plane' exclusivity rule that the schema does not express. It also clarifies side direction conventions (top=+Y, front=+Z, right=+X) and gives an edge_type example (hole rims), though much of this repeats the schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb ('Select') plus precise resource ('every edge of one face of the active part') with an explicit multi-select qualifier. It is clearly distinct from select_feature, select_face_edges' siblings like get_selected_entities and select_feature, which query or select features rather than face edges.

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?

It explains the exact consumption pattern: the edges become the live SolidWorks selection so the next add_chamfer/add_fillet with an empty edge_names acts on them. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives (e.g. when to use select_feature or passing explicit edge_names instead), so it stops short of the top score.

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