create_exploded_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'create.' It does not disclose whether this mutates the assembly in place, whether it persists to the project/document, what happens if a definition with the same name exists, or what it returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is under-specified rather than verbose, but conciseness itself is good.

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?

Given a two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It should at least explain the parameters and its relationship to the explode/animate siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and it does not: neither 'name' nor 'assembly_id' is mentioned or explained. The agent learns nothing about naming constraints or whether assembly_id refers to an existing assembly created by create_assembly.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create an exploded view definition for an assembly.' An agent can tell this creates an exploded-view definition rather than geometry. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings like add_explode_step or animate_explode, leaving the boundary between them to inference.

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 prerequisites (e.g., must an assembly already exist?), and no routing to alternatives such as add_explode_step or animate_explode. The agent must guess which of the explode-related tools applies.

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