Set precise material properties for SolidWorks designs. Assign library materials to your document to calculate accurate mass and run simulations effectively.
Assign a material (affects mass, Simulation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| database | No | solidworks materials.sldmat | |
| material | Yes | Exact library name: 'AISI 1020', '6061-T6 (SS)', 'ABS', 'PLA'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation, and the description usefully adds that mass properties and Simulation are affected. It does not say whether an existing assignment is overwritten, what happens if the material name isn't in the library, or whether the change propagates to assembly components.
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 short sentence with zero waste and the core action front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
It is a mutation tool with no output schema, an undocumented 'database' parameter, and no explanation of library requirements, overwrite behavior, or scope of application. The single parenthetical does not cover what an agent needs to invoke it safely.
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 a solid 67%: 'doc' and 'material' are documented with examples in the schema, while 'database' is undocumented in both places. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already carries, 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 a specific verb ('Assign') and resource ('material'), plus the side effect that it affects mass and Simulation. However it doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as sw_set_appearance or sw_set_properties, and it never says what entity the material applies to (part, body, component).
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., a document must be open/active), and no mention of alternatives. The parenthetical about mass and Simulation hints at consequences, not at when to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.