solidworks_reference_geometry

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

The annotations already indicate destructive=true, readOnly=false, etc. The description adds no specific side-effect information (e.g., that it creates features in the active document, requires an open document, or makes persistent changes). It only describes the dispatch mechanism and parameter defaults, which is not enough to disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's dispatcher role and lists the supported operations. It avoids extraneous detail and is appropriately concise for the complexity.

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 complex discriminated-union schema with five operations each having several fields, the description is too high-level. It does not explain the differences between operations, which fields are required or optional, or what the tool outputs, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 zero field descriptions and the description only adds generic notes about typed field sets, defaults, and unit conventions. It does not explain what fields like 'references', 'constraints', 'point_type', or 'values' mean, leaving the agent to infer semantics from field names alone.

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 handle reference geometry operations for axis, coordinate_system, coordinate_system_numeric, plane, and point, which identifies its purpose as creating reference geometry. It does not explicitly use a direct verb like 'create' but the operation names make the resource clear; it is distinguishable from sibling tools by the reference-geometry focus.

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 provides some operational guidance, such as typed field sets, defaults for unspecified fields, and unit conventions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it compare with sibling tools that might create other geometry types.

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