solidworks_rebuild

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

Annotations already indicate destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds the useful behaviors of reporting failure and needing a follow-up feature inspection for error codes. It does not contradict annotations and gives extra operational context beyond the structured metadata.

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 with no filler: the first states the primary action and result, and the second gives a concise next step. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the high-level context is adequate. However, the undocumented 'force' and 'document' parameters leave an important gap, and the description does not specify any prerequisites such as an open document or connected SolidWorks session.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the 'force' and 'document' parameters, but it mentions neither. The parameter names and defaults offer some clue, yet no semantic detail is provided in the description.

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 states a specific action — 'Rebuild a model' — and adds the key outcome of reporting failure, which distinguishes it from inspection, analysis, and modification tools. The follow-up instruction to inspect features for error codes reinforces the tool's unique role in the rebuild workflow.

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 by saying 'Inspect features afterwards,' which positions rebuild as a prerequisite for detailed error-code inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose rebuild over sibling tools or mention any exclusions.

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