Rename a SolidWorks dimension to a meaningful name, such as changing D1@Sketch1 to chord@Sketch1, so equations are easier to read and maintain.
Give a dimension a meaningful name ('D1@Sketch1' -> 'chord@Sketch1') for equations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| new_name | Yes | ||
| dimension | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations confirm this is a non-read-only/non-destructive change. The description adds behavioral context by explaining *why* the name should be changed (for equations), adding moderate value beyond the safety hints provided by the annotations.
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?
The single sentence is highly efficient. It defines the action, the target, the goal, and provides a concrete example all without unnecessary jargon or fluff.
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 the low coverage and lack of an output schema, the description successfully defines the tool's function and the required input semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly based on the goal.
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?
With schema description coverage at 33%, the description is critical. It clarifies that the 'dimension' parameter is the cryptic source name and 'new_name' is the readable target name, adding necessary semantic context that the schema lacks.
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 uses a specific verb ('Give a dimension a meaningful name'), identifies the resource (a dimension), and provides an excellent transformation example ('D1@Sketch1' -> 'chord@Sketch1'), making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
It clearly defines the context for using the tool—when dimensions need to be readable 'for equations.' While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the focus on 'meaningful name' strongly implies use over default, cryptic naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.