Move or rotate a SolidWorks body by translation and angles, or create up to 100 copies at a specified body point for design automation.
Move/rotate a body, or copy it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | No | Optional name for the new feature. | |
| copies | No | 0 = move, n = make n copies. | |
| translate | No | ||
| body_point | Yes | [x, y, z] in model mm | |
| rotate_angles | No | Degrees about X, Y, Z. | |
| rotate_center | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'rotate' beyond the tool name and says nothing about whether existing bodies are modified, whether copies are independent, or what coordinate frame applies.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that the move versus copy distinction and the rotate operation are not structured or clarified.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits how the body is identified, what happens to the original when copying, and what the return behavior is.
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 71%, with parameters like translate and rotate_center lacking descriptions. The description supplies no parameter semantics at all, so it does not compensate for the remaining gaps.
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 names specific operations (move/rotate/copy) on a specific resource (body), so the core purpose is clear. It does not differentiate from related body manipulation or pattern siblings, but an agent can still identify the operation.
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 by the verb list, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as sw_linear_pattern, sw_mirror, or sw_scale. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.