Suppress or unsuppress a specified SolidWorks feature, optionally in a chosen document, to control feature participation and rebuild behavior without deleting geometry.
Suppress or unsuppress a feature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| feature | Yes | ||
| suppressed | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly operation that is not destructive. The description adds only that suppression can be reversed via 'unsuppress', but it does not explain effects such as rebuild requirements, dependency behavior, or what happens to downstream features.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized structurally, though its brevity contributes to under-specification.
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 mutation tool with three parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It leaves ambiguous how to identify the feature and what the suppression state change entails beyond toggling a flag.
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 only 33%; the 'feature' parameter has no schema description at all. The description does not clarify whether 'feature' expects a name, ID, or tree path, nor does it explain the 'suppressed' boolean mapping or the 'doc' default behavior beyond what the schema partially provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: suppress/unsuppress a feature. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic operation, but it does not differentiate from nearby tools such as sw_delete_feature or other feature-manipulation actions.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it applies to a feature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.