solidworks_body

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

The description discloses that unspecified fields fall back to module defaults and explains unit conventions, which are useful behavioral details not in the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects beyond the destructiveHint annotation, nor does it mention error handling or return behavior. The annotations already cover the destructive nature, so the description adds moderate transparency.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that efficiently convey the dispatcher nature, the list of operations, and the fallback/unit behavior. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description provides a high-level overview of the tool's functionality, including the discriminator field, the set of operations, and the fallback/unit conventions. It directs the agent to the input schema for per-operation details, but given the schema lacks descriptions, some details (e.g., return values, error cases) are not covered. For a dispatcher tool, this level of context is largely sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the raw input schema by clarifying that each operation has a typed field set and that unspecified fields fall back to defaults. It also explains unit conventions (SI unless a unit field is provided). Since the schema has no field descriptions, these clarifications are valuable, though individual field semantics are left to the schema's property names and defaults.

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 that the tool dispatches on payload.operation to various body-operation handlers, listing the specific operations. It identifies the resource as solidworks_body and the action as dispatching, which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the operation list makes its scope clear.

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 implies when to use the tool (when performing body operations like cavity, combine, delete, etc.) by listing the operations, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. It also refers to the input schema for details, but no explicit comparison to sibling tools is provided, so usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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