sw_rebuild

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the call surfaces features with errors or warnings, but does not say whether a rebuild can silently change geometry, whether it is expensive on large assemblies, or how the report is presented.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the information the agent actually needs, but nothing written is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the reported errors/warnings look like and whether the rebuild modifies stored model state. It gestures at the return content but leaves the agent guessing about result structure and side effects.

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% and the single 'doc' parameter is fully documented with its default-to-active-document behavior, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb-and-resource pair (rebuild features + report errors/warnings), so the basic action is identifiable. However, 'rebuild' is CAD-specific jargon left undefined, and the description does not distinguish this from nearby diagnostic siblings like sw_health, sw_status, or sw_check_requirements.

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 call this versus sw_health, sw_status, or sw_list_features, and no stated preconditions (e.g. an open document). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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