add_explode_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses nothing. It does not say the tool mutates an existing view, whether the step is appended or replaces existing steps, whether the call is undoable/transactional, or what happens on invalid component or view ids.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is concise, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency, which caps the score at merely adequate.

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?

This is a mutating CAD operation with five required geometric parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. The description supplies none of the prerequisite, side-effect, or return-value context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% across five required parameters (assembly_id, view_id, component_ids, direction, distance). The description mentions none of them, so an agent gets no meaning for the 3-vector direction convention, the units/scale of distance, or whether view_id must belong to assembly_id.

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 concrete verb and resource: it adds an explode step, and it scopes that step to an exploded view. An agent can tell roughly what the tool does, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like create_exploded_view or animate_explode, which occupy the same exploded-view domain.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that an exploded view must already exist), and no routing to alternatives such as create_exploded_view for creating the view or animate_explode for playback. The agent must infer placement in the workflow entirely on its own.

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