rebuild_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying API (ForceRebuild3) and that this is a real local SW2020 COM adapter operation, but says nothing about whether a document must already be active, failure behavior, performance cost, or whether the rebuild mutates saved state.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its mechanism. The second sentence adds integration context rather than filler, though it is somewhat meta/internal for an agent's selection decision.

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, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. However, with no annotations on a mutating operation, an agent is left without guidance on preconditions (active document) or side effects, leaving a meaningful behavioral gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify or omit.

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+resource ('Rebuild the active SolidWorks document') and names the underlying API (ForceRebuild3), so the operation is unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from macro/UI-driven rebuilds, though it does not name a sibling tool directly.

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?

The phrase 'so MCP hosts can explicitly rebuild without a macro or UI' implies the usage context (need an explicit rebuild without macro recording or UI interaction), but no alternative sibling (e.g., execute_macro) is named and no when-not conditions are given. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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