Creates a coil spring in SolidWorks from coil diameter, wire diameter, pitch, and revolutions by generating a circle, helix, and swept wire.
Coil spring in one call (circle -> helix -> swept wire).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | No | Optional name for the new feature. | |
| pitch | Yes | ||
| plane | No | top | |
| center | No | ||
| clockwise | No | ||
| revolutions | Yes | ||
| coil_diameter | Yes | Mean coil diameter (mm). | |
| wire_diameter | Yes |
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=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the spring is built via a three-step construction (circle, helix, swept wire), which explains what geometry ends up in the model. It does not disclose whether it adds a feature to the tree, requires an open document, or what happens on failure.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing usage and parameter guidance rather than resolving it.
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?
This is a 9-parameter mutating geometry generator with no output schema and only a third of its parameters documented. The description does not cover the units/conventions (pitch in mm, center as a 2D point on the chosen plane), the plane options, or the resulting feature. Given the complexity, substantially more context is needed.
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%: only doc and coil_diameter are documented, while pitch, wire_diameter, plane, center, clockwise and revolutions have no schema descriptions. The description text says nothing about any parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap – for example, the valid values for plane ('top' default is ambiguous) or the unit/meaning of pitch remain unexplained.
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 names a specific resource (a coil spring) and states it is produced in a single call, with the construction sequence 'circle -> helix -> swept wire' making the operation concrete. An agent can distinguish it from the low-level siblings sw_helix and sw_sweep because this is a composite one-shot generator. It stops short of saying explicitly that it creates a new feature in the model tree.
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 parenthetical 'circle -> helix -> swept wire' implies this should be preferred over manually chaining sw_create_sketch/sw_helix/sw_sweep, but no sibling is named and no condition for preferring it is stated. There is no guidance on preconditions (open document, active document) or when it would fail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.