sw_connect

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the meaningful side effect that the app may be launched if not running, plus a consent requirement. It doesn't say what happens on failure (no SolidWorks installed, existing session) or whether the call is idempotent, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and appends the gating condition. Nothing is redundant or 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?

For a one-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, its side effect, and its consent gate. Only the post-call state (connected vs already connected, failure modes) is left unaddressed, which is minor here.

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?

With one optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains user_approved in detail. The description's permission phrasing reinforces but does not extend that meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (connect to SolidWorks) plus the scope of starting the application if needed. It is distinguishable from document-level siblings like sw_open or sw_new_document because it targets the application connection, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The permission prerequisite is stated ('only with the user's permission'), and the parameter description clarifies the escape hatch for clients that cannot prompt. However, it never says when to call this versus sw_status or sw_health, nor whether it must precede all other sw_* calls or is safe to call repeatedly.

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