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 minimal behavioral context. It implies a merging action but does not detail effects like geometry changes, error conditions, or output format. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds limited value beyond them.

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, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and annotations covering basic behavior, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on usage, parameter nuances, or output expectations, leaving gaps in contextual understanding for effective agent use.

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 50%, with 'tolerance' documented but 'body_names' lacking a description. The description mentions 'surface bodies' and 'single body', hinting at the purpose of 'body_names', but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema partially provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's partial coverage.

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 ('stitch') and resource ('surface bodies'), specifying the action and target. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_surface' or 'thicken_surface', which also manipulate surfaces, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing existing surface bodies), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'patch_surface' or 'boolean_operation', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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