sw_explode

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict that, so no contradiction flag. However, for a mutation tool the description adds nothing beyond the title: it does not say whether existing exploded states are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible via sw_collapse, or that the model's component positions change in the view.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded verb or scope statement to anchor the agent.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no output schema, an undocumented 'distance' parameter, and an obvious inverse sibling (sw_collapse), the description is not complete enough: it omits reversibility, units, and preconditions. An agent can invoke it with defaults but cannot predict the resulting geometry.

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?

Only the 'doc' parameter is documented in the schema; 'distance' (default 50, exclusiveMinimum 0) has no description and no units, and the tool description never mentions parameters at all. With 50% schema coverage the description should compensate, but it provides no information on what 'distance' controls (spacing between components?) or its unit of measure.

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 phrase 'Automatic exploded view of the assembly' conveys the resource and rough effect, but it is a noun phrase without a clear verb and never distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling sw_collapse, which is the inverse operation. An agent can guess the intent but must infer whether it creates, applies, or returns an exploded view.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus sw_collapse, no prerequisites (does it require an open assembly, an active configuration?), and no mention of what state the assembly must be in. The description offers zero routing information.

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