set_component_flexible

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the change is reversible, what happens if the component is part of a rigid assembly, whether it affects mates or constraints, or what permissions are needed. It only restates the mutation without any side-effect or prerequisite information.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple setter, though its brevity contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than being verbose.

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 three required parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits parameter meaning, usage context, and behavioral effects, leaving the agent to infer almost everything from parameter names.

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 all three parameters. It only vaguely maps the boolean 'flexible' to the flexible/rigid states, while 'assembly_id' and 'instance_id' are never explained in the description or schema. An agent can guess their purpose from names, but the description adds little semantic value.

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 clear verb ('Mark') and resource ('a component') with the specific end state ('flexible or rigid'). It distinguishes the tool from unrelated siblings like create_box or measure_distance, though no sibling performs the same action. The meaning of 'flexible' in an assembly context is not expanded, but the core purpose is clear.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an existing assembly or component. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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