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. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that trimming occurs 'at its intersections' and removes 'the segment nearest to the given point', which clarifies how the tool behaves beyond the basic annotation information. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like how the remaining curve segments are handled.

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 perfectly concise with two clear sentences that front-load the core action and then specify the selection logic. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description adequately explains the core operation but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or how the tool interacts with the broader sketching context. Given the annotations cover basic safety aspects, the description provides minimum viable context but could be more complete.

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 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that point_x and point_y define 'the given point' used to determine 'the segment nearest to remove', which provides semantic understanding beyond the schema's technical descriptions. However, it doesn't address the undocumented 'sketch_name' parameter.

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 specific action ('Trim a sketch curve at its intersections') and the outcome ('The segment nearest to the given point is removed'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'extend_curve' or 'offset_curve' that modify curves differently. It uses precise technical language that identifies both the resource (sketch curve) and the operation (trim at intersections).

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 like 'extend_curve', 'offset_curve', or 'trim_surface', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing sketch with curves. It simply describes what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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