Preview name and designation changes to see their impact on a CAD model before applying, avoiding unintended errors.
Build a safe preview of name and designation changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rules_path | No | ||
| document_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Safe preview' suggests a non-mutating operation, but there is no statement about whether the document/state is modified, what side effects occur, whether a document must be open, or what the preview consists of.
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 brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It omits parameter relationship, output, and routing context, so it is concise more because of sparsity than because every necessary piece is present.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a large sibling set of preview/apply/analyze tools, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what the preview returns, when it applies, or how it differs from alternatives.
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 adds no meaning to rules_path or document_id. It does not explain what rules are used, what document is affected, or how the parameters relate to the name/designation changes.
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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and names the resource ('a safe preview of name and designation changes'), so the high-level purpose is readable. However, 'name and designation changes' is not tied to the actual inputs (rules_path/document_id) and does not differentiate this from sibling preview/apply/analyze tools.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_changeset, analyze_naming_issues, or preview_property_changes. 'Preview' implies it should precede application of changes, but this is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.