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, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the plane is 'for sketching', but doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., if it becomes active, how it interacts with other features, or any side effects). With annotations covering basic safety, this earns a baseline score for adding some purpose but lacking detailed behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema) and rich schema coverage, the description is minimal but not incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, output, or integration with other tools. With annotations providing safety hints, it's adequate but leaves gaps in guiding the agent effectively.

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 high at 90%, with most parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., method enum values, plane references). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general purpose, so it relies on the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('construction plane') with the purpose 'for sketching', which distinguishes it from other creation tools like create_box or create_cylinder. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_sketch, which might be a related sibling tool for sketching purposes.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when sketching is needed), or how it relates to sibling tools like create_sketch or create_construction_axis, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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