create_assembly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful trait - the assembly is created empty - but says nothing about required permissions, where the assembly is stored, whether the call is reversible, or what identifier is returned for later add_component calls.

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 zero padding and the action front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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 mutation tool with one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it omits the name argument's role, the resulting assembly's identity, and any follow-up workflow (add_component, mate_*). Only the 'empty' nuance adds value.

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?

There is one required parameter ('name') with 0% schema description coverage, so neither schema nor description explains it. The description does not mention the name at all, leaving constraints such as uniqueness and the minLength=1 requirement undocumented.

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 ('Create an ... assembly') and adds the qualifier 'empty' that tells the agent no components are populated. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as create_group, create_block, or create_component, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no indication of when to create an assembly versus a group, block, or component, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether a project/document must be open) are stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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