Fusion360 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it 'defines' setup components, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context like whether this creates persistent configurations, requires specific permissions, or has side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool with 7 parameters.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage (71%), the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or relationships to other CAM operations. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for missing output documentation.

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?

With 71% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'stock, coordinate system, and operation type' which maps to parameters like stock_mode and operation_type, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already documents about these parameters.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'manufacturing setup for a body', specifying it defines stock, coordinate system, and operation type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cam_create_operation' by focusing on setup creation rather than operation creation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other setup-related tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cam_list_setups' or 'cam_create_operation'. It mentions what the tool does but gives no context about prerequisites, timing, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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