sw_static_study

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state without being destructive. The description adds that loads are specified via picked model points and what metrics come back, but omits that it presumably creates a named study (default 'MCP Static'), whether it saves to the document, and that running a solver is slow.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outputs, with the prerequisite second. No filler; nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned metrics. For an 8-parameter solver invocation the remaining gaps are output units and runtime/state-persistence caveats, both relatively minor.

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 63%, so the baseline is 3. The description usefully clarifies that face_point values act as face pickers rather than load locations, which is genuine added meaning, but it says nothing about gravity, mesh_quality, element_size, or the study name parameter.

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 and resource ('linear static stress analysis' in SolidWorks Simulation) and names the outputs returned (max von Mises stress, displacement, safety factor). This clearly distinguishes it from the geometry-listing and mass-property siblings, though it does not explicitly say so.

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?

Explicitly gives a prerequisite and names the sibling that satisfies it ('Set the material first (sw_set_material)'), which is the key ordering constraint. It does not state when not to use it or what happens if the prerequisite is skipped.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.