Drive a SolidWorks dimension using an expression of global variables or other dimensions to create parametric relationships and control model geometry.
Drive a dimension with an expression of global variables / other dimensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| dimension | Yes | Dimension to drive, e.g. 'D1@Boss-Extrude1'. | |
| expression | Yes | e.g. '"span" / 2' or '"wall" * 2 + 3'. Quote names. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only tell us it is not read-only and not destructive, which is nearly the whole safety story for a mutation. The description does not disclose that it adds a new equation to the model, whether it errors on existing/duplicate equations, that equations evaluate on rebuild, or any auth/connection requirement. For a model-mutating tool this leaves real behavioral gaps.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler and the core mechanism front-loaded. Brevity is close to under-specification, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description should say what a successful call produces (new equation added) and how it interacts with existing equations. Given the tool mutates the model and has strong sibling overlap, this is too thin to be called complete.
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 100% and the schema already gives examples for dimension ('D1@Boss-Extrude1') and expression ('"span" / 2'), including the quoting rule. The description adds only the higher-level notion that the expression may reference globals/other dimensions, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Drive a dimension with an expression' clearly conveys the operation and its mechanism (global variables / other dimensions). It is distinguishable from sw_set_variables and sw_set_dimension, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings or acknowledges it creates a new equation (pairs with sw_list_equations / sw_delete_equation).
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (document must be open, model must support equations), and no mention of alternatives such as sw_set_variables for creating variables or sw_set_dimension for a static value. The agent has to infer all routing decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.