Round selected part edges or all edges with a constant-radius fillet to create clean transitions in SolidWorks models.
Round edges with a constant-radius fillet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | No | Optional name for the new feature. | |
| edges | No | 'all' for every edge of the part, or model points lying on the edges. | all |
| radius | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates the model additively. Beyond that, the description says nothing about how the new feature is added to the tree, whether it can be undone/edited, or how failures are reported. The 'constant-radius' phrase adds one useful behavioral limit but not much else.
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 no filler. Its terseness is efficient, though it leaves little room for the usage and behavioral context a mutation tool needs.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, yet the description omits error behavior, tree/feature implications, and edge-selection fallbacks that the schema hints at ('all' vs points). Adequate to identify the operation, insufficient to call it confidently in edge cases.
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 coverage is 75%: doc, name, and edges are documented in the schema, but 'radius' has no schema description. The description's 'constant-radius' impliedly clarifies that radius is a single uniform value rather than a variable-radius input, modestly adding meaning. Baseline 3 is fair given the schema does most of the work.
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 ('round edges ... fillet') that an agent can distinguish from geometry siblings like sw_chamfer or sw_shell. The 'constant-radius' qualifier narrows the operation type. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use a fillet versus sw_chamfer, when it will fail (e.g., radius too large for the edge), or prerequisites such as needing an open document with edge geometry. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.