solidworks_assembly

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details about fallback defaults and unit conventions, but does not explicitly state that operations modify the active assembly or require a connected document. This adds some value beyond the annotations but is not rich.

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 two sentences, efficiently listing the operations and giving unit/default guidance. It front-loads the dispatch concept and avoids filler, though it is somewhat abstract and could benefit from a concrete example or a clearer effect 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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 operation variants), the description is minimal. It relies heavily on the input schema, which is detailed, but it lacks guidance on when to select each operation, prerequisites like an open document, and how the tool interacts with the active assembly. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return-value descriptions, but overall completeness is only adequate.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the fallback-default mechanism and unit conventions (SI unless a unit field is accepted), which are not fully captured in the schema's property defaults. However, it does not detail individual operation parameters beyond pointing to the schema, so the added value is moderate.

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 clearly states it dispatches on payload.operation to capability-module handlers for a specific list of assembly operations (bom, mate, move_component, etc.), making its purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming its operation set, though it remains somewhat generic as a dispatcher without describing the effect of each operation.

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 description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like solidworks_assembly_tree or solidworks_mass_properties. It neither states alternatives nor provides exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the operation list and the tool name.

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