solidworks_modify_feature

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the workflow of discovering properties and using specific API methods, which provides some behavioral context but doesn't disclose side effects like model rebuilds or reference invalidation.

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, front-loading the core action and method. It is concise and avoids fluff, though it could be better structured with explicit parameter guidance.

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 destructive tool with openWorldHint, the description lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., connected document), side effects, or return values. It doesn't explain the parameters or output, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description mentions 'discover exact properties' as a hint for the properties object but doesn't explain the meaning of feature, document, component, or the expected structure of the properties map. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 edits a feature's definition, using AccessSelections/ModifyDefinition. It distinguishes itself from generic feature tools by specifying the action and method, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 hints that properties must be discovered first and that generic API/scripts are for indexed/method-based definitions, implying when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like solidworks_feature or solidworks_parametric, leaving usage context vague.

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