sw_check_machining

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the assumed machine/dimensions and collet set, states the side effect that export_dir triggers an additional STEP (mm) export for Makera CAM, and explicitly negates toolpath generation. It stops short of describing permissions or the exact result format.

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?

Purpose and defaults are front-loaded in one dense sentence followed by the export clause and the scope negation. Slightly packed (collet list and machine dims inline), but each element carries real information for correct invocation.

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 single-optional-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what is analyzed, the default assumptions, the export side effect, and the non-goal (no toolpaths). Return content is characterized by the check list rather than a structured spec, which is acceptable here.

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 coverage the description must compensate, and it does: export_dir is explained as the switch that additionally exports a STEP in mm for Makera CAM. That is meaningful behavior beyond the bare name/type in the schema, though it omits path/error semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (manufacturability review for 3-axis milling from +Z) and enumerates exactly what is checked (fit in area, min concave radius, cutter fit, L/D slenderness, tight holes, faces needing a flip). This is unmistakably distinct from the SolidWorks modeling/API siblings.

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?

Scope is implied rather than stated: it notes the default machine profile and that it does NOT generate toolpaths, which helps an agent place it as pre-CAM feasibility analysis. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance or prerequisites for invoking it.

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