Creates a new SOLIDWORKS part with default template, activates it, and sets units to millimeters by default to prevent DXF/DWG exports from using meters.
Crea una pieza nueva con la plantilla por defecto y la deja activa. Por defecto fija unidades MMGS (mm): la plantilla de fabrica viene en METROS y los DXF/DWG de chapa saldrian en metros.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mm | No | false = dejar las unidades de la plantilla. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose a non-obvious side effect: it overrides document units to MMGS by default and explains why (factory template is in metres, sheet-metal DXF/DWG would export in metres). It also states the document is left active.
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?
Two tight sentences: purpose first, then the units caveat. Every clause earns its place and the most important constraint is front-loaded after the purpose.
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 simple one-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, unit behavior, and resulting document state. Only minor gaps remain, such as the exact template name or session requirements.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of the default (mm=true → MMGS) and the reason for it, which is exactly the decision an agent must reason about.
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 and resource ('Crea una pieza nueva') plus the template used and the resulting document state ('la deja activa'). It is clearly distinct from sw_open by the word 'nueva', though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the name – you call it to start a fresh part – but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives such as sw_open, and no preconditions (e.g. active session).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.