Generate VBA code for managing SOLIDWORKS files: open, save, close, and rename documents programmatically. Automate file operations without manual scripting.
Generate VBA code for file management operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_data | Yes | The input data value. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it generates code, but omits side effects (e.g., file creation, permissions), output format, or whether the code is returned or saved. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.
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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently positioned but could benefit from a bit more detail to enhance usefulness without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (free-form object input with no constraints) and presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain what the input_data should contain or how to structure it. This leaves a significant gap for an agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The parameter description ('The input data value.') adds minimal meaning, but the rule allows baseline 3 even without additional param info from the description. The description does not compensate for the vagueness in the schema.
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?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Generate VBA code') and the domain ('file management operations'). It distinguishes from the broader sibling 'generate_vba_code' and other VBA generation tools, though it could be more specific about what 'file management operations' entails.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'generate_vba_code' or 'generate_vba_extrusion'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.