solidworks_configuration

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

The description only mentions dispatch mechanics and does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., deletion, modification, activation) that some operations perform. While the annotations indicate destructive behavior, the description itself adds no transparency about the impact of individual operations.

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 very concise, using only a few sentences to convey the dispatcher pattern and the list of operations. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy to read and understand.

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 covers the dispatch mechanism and fallback behavior, but does not mention what the tool returns or how the output might vary by operation. Given that an output schema exists, a brief note on return shape would improve completeness, but it is not critical for basic usage.

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 schema already provides detailed parameter definitions, defaults, and required fields. The description adds value by clarifying the unit convention for length/angle fields, which is not evident from the schema alone. This helps interpret the 'unit' parameter correctly.

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 specific handlers for configuration operations, and lists all supported operations. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools focused on other SolidWorks aspects.

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?

It explains that each operation has its own typed field set and that unspecified fields fall back to defaults, guiding usage. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, but the operation list and name make it evident for configuration tasks.

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