solidworks_drawing

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations by mentioning that unspecified fields fall back to module function defaults and that lengths/angles follow unit conventions (SI unless a unit field is provided). This gives insight into parameter handling and measurement behavior, complementing the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 reasonably concise, fitting into two sentences. The list of operations is long but necessary for completeness. The structure is clear: first sentence identifies the dispatcher role and operations, second sentence explains field defaults and units. No extraneous information is included.

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 (multiple operations with distinct field sets), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what each operation accomplishes (e.g., what 'export' exports or how 'section_view' behaves), nor does it describe the document parameter's role. An agent would lack critical context to correctly select and configure an operation without additional external knowledge.

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 has no parameter descriptions, and the tool description provides minimal semantic guidance. It tells users to consult the input schema for field definitions and clarifies unit conventions, but it does not explain the purpose or meaning of the core parameters (payload, document) or the individual operation-specific fields. The description relies on the schema, which is itself underdescribed, leaving parameters semantically opaque.

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 the tool is a dispatcher for drawing-specific operations, listing all supported operations (add_annotation, detail_view, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other SolidWorks aspects like sketching or features, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for drawing operations through the list of operation names, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other SolidWorks tools (e.g., solidworks_open_document or solidworks_sketch). It lacks direct comparison or exclusionary guidance, so the usage context is only implicit.

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