Saves SolidWorks parts, assemblies, or drawings as native .sldprt, .sldasm, or .slddrw files, with optional document, path, and overwrite controls.
Save as a native SolidWorks file (.sldprt / .sldasm / .slddrw).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| path | No | File name (output folder) or full path in an allowed folder. | |
| overwrite | No | Replace an existing file (the user is asked first). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the format scope; it does not say whether this is save-in-place vs save-as, whether the document's associated path is rebound, or that the overwrite prompt is a blocking user interaction beyond what the schema notes.
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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the supported formats. It is efficient but borders on under-specified for a mutation tool, which is penalized elsewhere rather than here.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back on success/failure, and it says nothing. For a write tool that can overwrite files and depends on the active document, the definition is minimally adequate.
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% — doc, path, and overwrite are each documented, including that overwrite prompts the user. The description contributes nothing about parameter defaults or path resolution rules, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the specific verb 'save' and the resource — a native SolidWorks file — and enumerates the three document-type extensions, which distinguishes it from sw_export/sw_batch_export by format rather than by name. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the 'native' qualifier does the differentiating work.
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?
The word 'native' implies this is for saving in SolidWorks' own format versus exporting to other formats, but no when-to-use/when-not statement or alternative is spelled out. The agent must infer the routing between sw_save and sw_export.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.