Fusion360 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds context about the purpose (mold release/injection molding) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like whether the operation is reversible, has specific failure modes, or affects related geometry beyond the selected faces.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the tool's function in a compact form appropriate for its complexity.

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 geometric modeling tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering basic safety, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on geometric constraints, error conditions, or output expectations, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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 80% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameters well (e.g., 'angle' as draft angle in degrees, 'face_selection' options). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'faces' are targeted, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage without 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 ('Add a draft angle') and target resource ('faces of a body'), with specific context ('for mold release / injection molding'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'chamfer' or 'fillet' by focusing on draft/taper functionality, though it doesn't explicitly compare to similar tools like 'offset_faces'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'offset_faces' or 'chamfer' for similar geometric modifications. The description mentions the application context (mold release/injection molding) but doesn't provide explicit usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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