Sync specification rows from the model tree into a CAD document. Optionally save, fill only certain fields, or limit objects to automate specification updates.
Apply filling or syncing of specification rows from the model tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| fill_only | No | ||
| document_id | No | ||
| layout_name | No | ||
| max_objects | No | ||
| include_root | No | ||
| close_after_save | No | ||
| description_index | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects. It says 'Apply' which implies mutation, but it does not state whether the operation modifies the document, whether it saves, whether it is reversible, or what changes are made to the specification rows. The description adds almost nothing beyond what the name itself suggests.
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 single sentence is short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. For a tool with 9 parameters and no other documentation, one vague sentence is not appropriately sized; the brevity sacrifices essential meaning.
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?
This is a complex operation with 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and rich sibling context. The description provides almost none of the contextual framing an agent needs: no mention of preview flow, no scope, no save behavior, no relationship to related specification tools. It is far from sufficient for correct invocation.
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 description mentions none of the 9 parameters. An agent has no help understanding what 'fields', 'fill_only', 'max_objects', 'include_root', 'close_after_save', or 'description_index' control. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's total lack of parameter documentation.
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 identifies a clear verb ('Apply') and resource ('filling or syncing of specification rows from the model tree'), so an agent can reasonably infer this executes an autofill operation. However, 'filling or syncing' is ambiguous about what exactly happens, and it does not clearly distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like apply_specification_changes or refresh_specification_from_model.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as preview_specification_autofill, apply_specification_changes, or refresh_specification_from_model. The relationship to preview_specification_autofill is implied by the name but never stated in the description, so an agent cannot confidently decide when this is the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.