Create a PartDesign Body in FreeCAD so later sketches and features are placed inside it. Returns the body handle and name.
Create a PartDesign Body. Subsequent sketches/features go inside it.
Returns {handle, name}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Body |
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 full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape {handle, name}, but does not say whether the body is created in the active document, whether it becomes active, what side effects occur, or what errors may arise.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by scope and return information. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 simple creation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape, but omits parameter meaning and document context. It is minimally adequate rather than fully 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter 'name' has no schema description. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw property name and default 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a PartDesign Body.' The follow-up sentence clarifies its role as a container for subsequent sketches/features. It does not differentiate from sibling creation tools like make_assembly or add_part, but the resource is specific.
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?
'Subsequent sketches/features go inside it' implies usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as make_assembly, add_part, or new_document, and no prerequisites like needing an active document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.