sw_rebuild

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, whether the rebuild can invalidate downstream features, whether it requires an open document/connection, or what happens on failure. Only the word 'Fuerza' hints at a forced/override behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but its terseness comes at the cost of useful content rather than from disciplined editing.

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 state-changing operation on the active document with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. An agent lacks enough information to call it confidently or predict its effect.

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?

One parameter ('full') exists with 0% schema description coverage (no description, just a default), and the description does not mention it at all. The difference between a normal and a full rebuild is left entirely unexplained.

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?

"Fuerza reconstruccion del documento activo" states a specific verb (force rebuild) and resource (active document), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like sw_new_part or sw_list_features. However, it never explains what a 'rebuild' means for the model or how it relates to editing operations, so it is clear but bare.

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?

No indication of when to rebuild versus when not to, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must infer that this is used after geometry changes.

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