sw_thread

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

Annotations already declare that this is not read-only and not destructive, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that the result is a real modelled thread created with the SolidWorks Thread feature, but it does not disclose that it adds a feature to the document, modifies the body, or what happens on non-cylindrical faces.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a short tool description, though it is a fragment rather than a full action statement.

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 9-parameter feature-creation tool with several thread-related siblings, the description is too thin: it does not explain selection relative to sw_cosmetic_thread, does not clarify the internal/external or cut/extrude modes, and does not describe the mutation behavior. The rich schema and annotations help, but they do not compensate for the missing routing guidance.

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 high (89%), so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general use case. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource and method: a real modelled helical thread using the SolidWorks Thread feature. It also gives concrete use cases (printable bolts, nuts, caps), which helps distinguish it from a purely cosmetic thread. The only gap is that it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative it contrasts with.

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 phrase 'printable bolts, nuts, caps' implies intended use cases, and 'real modelled' hints at when to prefer this over a cosmetic thread. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as sw_cosmetic_thread or sw_helix.

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