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, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Translate' (e.g., whether it moves relative to current position or to absolute coordinates, if it affects constraints, or what happens on failure). No contradiction with annotations exists, but minimal value is added.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and parameters, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters), lack of output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or practical usage context (e.g., in a CAD environment). The annotations help but don't fully compensate for these gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parameters (x, y, z) but provides no semantics (e.g., units, coordinate system, or that 'body_name' identifies the target). This leaves key details undocumented, failing to adequately supplement the bare schema.

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 ('Translate') and the resource ('a named body') with specific parameters (x, y, z). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scale_body' or 'mirror' by focusing on translation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools that might also move bodies indirectly (e.g., 'create_component' could involve positioning).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the body must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for rotating), or related tools (e.g., 'scale_body' for resizing). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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