Removes a body from a SolidWorks model using a reversible Delete/Keep Body feature. Specify the body by a point; the deletion can be undone by deleting the feature.
Remove a body with a Delete/Keep Body feature (reversible: delete that feature).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | No | Optional name for the new feature. | |
| body_point | Yes | [x, y, z] in model mm |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond that boolean by explaining why: the removal is reversible via deleting the Delete Body feature. It still omits whether the tool works in assemblies or what happens if body_point misses a body.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the verb, mechanism, and reversibility are all packed into one clause.
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 but thin for a mutation tool with three parameters: it doesn't say which document contexts are supported or what a failed body selection looks like. With full schema coverage and annotations present, the remaining gaps are moderate rather than severe.
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%, so doc, name, and body_point (with mm units and 3-element constraint) are already documented. The description adds nothing about parameter 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 (Remove) and resource (body) and explains the mechanism (Delete/Keep Body feature), which distinguishes it from siblings like sw_delete_feature and sw_move_copy_body. It lacks only an explicit contrast with those siblings.
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 implied rather than stated: the mention of a Delete/Keep Body feature signals part modeling with feature-based removal. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as suppression or sw_delete_feature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.