set_design_typeSwitch between parametric and direct modeling to restore design history after accidental direct-mode changes. Choose parametric to recover, or direct for explicit modeling.
Switch design type between 'parametric' and 'direct'. Use 'parametric' to recover from accidental direct-mode switches (equivalent to Capture Design History in the UI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| design_type | Yes | Target design type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent write semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful UI equivalence and recovery framing, but omits what actually happens to existing features/history when the mode flips, which is the main behavioral concern for this operation.
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, zero waste, with the mode values front-loaded ahead of the recovery guidance. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a single required parameter with a fully covered schema and annotations, but for a state-changing mode switch the description never states the consequence of switching modes or points to get_design_type for inspection, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 100% with an enum and a 'Target design type' description, so the schema already carries the parameter. The description adds meaning to the 'parametric' value only, leaving 'direct' undefined, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.
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 (switch) and resource (design type), enumerating the two valid target values. It is instantly distinguishable from the sibling get_design_type since one reads and one writes the mode.
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 a concrete when-to-use scenario for 'parametric' (recovering from accidental direct-mode switches) and maps it to the UI concept 'Capture Design History'. It stops short of saying when 'direct' is the right choice or explicitly naming get_design_type as the read counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.