Add a multi-view projection group of a body to a FreeCAD drawing page, with selectable view codes like Front, Top, and Right.
Add a multi-view projection group of body to a drawing page.
views: list of FreeCAD view codes ('Front', 'Top', 'Right', 'Left',
'Bottom', 'Rear', 'FrontTopLeft', etc.). Default: ['Front', 'Top', 'Right'].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| name | No | ProjGroup | |
| page | Yes | ||
| views | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation via 'Add' but does not state side effects, required object preconditions, permissions, or whether the page is modified; the default views list is parameter detail rather than behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The views example codes and default are useful and appropriately placed after the core action.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and views defaults but omits the name parameter and does not explain body/page reference expectations. It is minimally sufficient for an agent with FreeCAD context but has clear 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 thoroughly documents the views parameter with FreeCAD view codes and default value, but leaves the name parameter entirely undocumented and only names body/page without adding reference semantics or type details.
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?
Specific verb (Add) and resource (multi-view projection group), with target body and drawing page named. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling drawing tools like add_section_view or add_dimension, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'to a drawing page,' which is not actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.