add_from_onshape

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description still discloses meaningful behavior: credentials come from ~/.onshape-mcp/.env, each call consumes the user's Onshape API quota, and the default arrange=true re-arranges the bed afterwards. It does not say whether arranging disturbs existing objects on the bed or how partial failures behave, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Core action is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact args list where each line adds detail rather than repeating the schema titles. Slight redundancy in restating parameter names, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the five parameters are fully covered. Missing only edge-case guidance such as behavior when a requested part name or bed name does not exist, which matters for a networked import that mutates bed state.

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%, yet all five parameters are explained with meaning the schema lacks: the accepted URL shapes (document or document/w/<id>/e/<part studio id>), that parts defaults to all solid parts and matches case-insensitively, that bed takes a name or "new", and copies/arrange defaults.

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 (download), source (Onshape part studio), output format (millimeter STL), and destination (a bed). The Onshape-specific framing plus the note that each download consumes API allocation makes it unmistakably distinct from the generic add_model sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: the name and URL argument make clear this is the path for Onshape-hosted parts, but the description never says when to prefer it over add_model or what to do if a part name does not match. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated beyond the API-key requirement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.