solidworks_parametric

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

The description adds useful context about default fallback for unspecified fields and unit conventions (SI unless a unit field is accepted). However, it does not disclose the destructive nature (consistent with destructiveHint=true) or any side effects of operations like delete_equation or set_dimension. It neither contradicts annotations nor fully elaborates on 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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the dispatcher mechanism and operation list, then covers defaults and units. It is reasonably concise with no filler, though the density could be slightly improved with bullet points or clearer separation of concepts.

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 (7 operations with distinct field sets) and that an output schema exists, the description is minimal. It lacks error behavior, side-effect warnings, and examples. The agent must rely heavily on the schema and annotations to understand each operation, which may be insufficient for correct invocation in many contexts.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that each operation has a typed field set (pointing to the schema), that unspecified fields fall back to module defaults, and that units follow SI unless a unit field exists. This provides high-level guidance but does not detail individual parameter meanings or formats, which are left to the schema.

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 dispatches on payload.operation to handlers for a specific list of operations (add_equation, delete_equation, set_dimension, etc.). This gives a precise verb+resource scope and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that cover other SolidWorks domains (sketch, feature, assembly, etc.).

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely lists operations without explaining when parametric operations are appropriate compared to, e.g., solidworks_api, solidworks_sketch, or solidworks_modify_feature. No explicit 'use for X, not for Y' guidance is provided.

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