save_body_as_part

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 bodies are matched by name, that an unknown name yields a response listing the real options, and that success is verified by the file existing on disk. It omits overwrite behavior and any permissions/prerequisite disclosure, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each add distinct behavioral detail (name matching, response contents, success check). It is slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a nested-parameter tool with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, yet it still usefully notes the response lists found bodies. It covers the main behavioral edge (unknown name) and verification method, leaving only secondary concerns like overwrite and error conditions unstated.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: body_name is matched against the active part's solid bodies, and file_path receives the extracted standalone part. This complements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Extract one solid body from the active multibody part to a new file.' It names the underlying SolidWorks operation (Save Bodies) and the exact output (a standalone part at file_path), which distinguishes it from whole-document savers like save_part or save_as.

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?

Usage context is clear: it applies to the active multibody part and a 'single named body,' which implicitly excludes whole-part saves. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g., save_part) or states when-not-to-use, so the routing is inferable rather than spelled out.

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