Closes the current part or assembly without saving, or saves first if specified. If no document is open, closes SolidWorks' active document only if it has no unsaved changes.
Close the current part or assembly without saving (export/save first if needed).
With no current document it closes SolidWorks' active one, but only when that has no unsaved changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: the operation does not save, it targets the current document, falls back to SolidWorks' active document, and refuses when unsaved changes exist. It omits error/return behavior and how the 'save' parameter changes outcomes.
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?
Front-loads the core action in the first clause, then appends the edge case. Two short sentences with little waste, though the second paragraph is somewhat niche for its placement.
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?
No output schema or annotations, so the description must stand alone. It covers the main action and the no-document fallback but leaves the 'save' parameter's semantics undefined, which is a meaningful gap for an operation whose main risk is unsaved data loss.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'save' boolean is undocumented. Worse, the description flatly says it closes 'without saving', which implies save is always false and leaves the save=true behavior unexplained, creating tension with the parameter's existence.
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 ('Close') and resource ('current part or assembly') with clear scope, and the parenthetical about export/save distinguishes it from the save_part/export siblings an agent might otherwise pick.
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?
Gives actionable context: close without saving, export/save first if needed, and the fallback behavior when no document is open. It implies a when-not condition (only closes the active doc when it has no unsaved changes) but does not explicitly name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.