Delete a non-active configuration by name from a specified SolidWorks document, defaulting to the active document. Use it to remove obsolete design variants without affecting the active configuration.
Delete a (non-active) configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states this deletes a configuration, an irreversible mutation of design data, while annotations declare destructiveHint=false. That flagged mismatch leaves the agent with no reliable signal on reversibility, and the description adds nothing about what happens to features, drawings, or mates that reference the deleted configuration.
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 short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but at this length it is under-specified rather than concise. The single clause cannot carry the preconditions and consequences an agent needs for a destructive operation.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and questionable annotation coverage, the description should explain the active-configuration precondition, whether the active config must be switched first, and what happens to dependent features. None of that is present, leaving the definition materially incomplete.
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 only 50%: the `doc` parameter is documented in the schema, but `name` — the sole required parameter — has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description does not clarify that `name` is the configuration name or whether it must match exactly.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource (delete a configuration) plus a scope constraint (non-active), which is clear and distinct from siblings like sw_delete_feature or sw_delete_body. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the configuration is active.
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 parenthetical '(non-active)' implies the tool fails or is inappropriate for the active configuration, but the description never states the precondition explicitly nor routes the agent to sw_activate_configuration or sw_list_configurations first. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.