Produce VBA code for complex revolve operations in SolidWorks, specifying angles, axis references, and thin-feature settings.
Generate VBA code for complex revolve 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool generates code, lacking details on side effects (e.g., file creation), output format, or whether it is destructive. The brevity leaves agents uninformed about important behavioral traits.
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 extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks substance. It is front-loaded but too sparse to be fully informative. Every sentence should earn its place; here, more descriptive detail is needed.
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 nested input schema and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'complex revolve operations' entails, how the generated VBA is used, or the tool's role among many VBA generation tools. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing context.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with each property described. The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 states the tool generates VBA code for revolve operations, distinguishing it from other generate_vba_* siblings focused on different features. However, 'complex revolve operations' is somewhat vague, and it could be more specific, such as mentioning it creates a revolve feature VBA macro.
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 like generate_vba_extrusion or create_revolve. The description does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or contrast with similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.