Fusion360 MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context beyond this, as 'Remove' aligns with destructive but doesn't elaborate on effects (e.g., irreversible deletion, impact on dependent features) or permissions needed. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive nature (per annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what happens post-deletion (e.g., error if parameter doesn't exist, return value) or dependencies, though annotations cover safety aspects. For a simple deletion tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% with one parameter ('name') clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity). With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Remove a user parameter' clearly states the action (remove) and resource (user parameter), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_all' (which might delete all parameters) or 'set_parameter' (which modifies rather than removes), missing full sibling distinction.

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 (e.g., parameter must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system parameters), or compare to siblings like 'delete_all' or 'set_parameter', leaving usage context unclear.

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