catia_add_sub_assembly

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), and the description does not contradict them. It adds the structural context that a Product is nested inside an existing assembly, but omits whether the parent must already exist, whether the new sub-assembly becomes active, and the duplicate-creation risk implied by idempotentHint=false.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then supplies one compact clarifying example. Nothing is redundant and nothing is missing for its length.

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 creation tool with no output schema and only annotation-level behavioral coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it does not say what is returned or what state changes on success. Given a simple 2-parameter schema with full coverage, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 100%, so both parameters (parent, part_number) are already documented, including the root default. The description adds no syntax, format, or path-convention detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a new sub-assembly (Product) inside the assembly') and clarifies the concept with an example (Wheel / Shaft sub-assemblies). It distinguishes itself reasonably from sibling creation tools like catia_add_component and catia_new_product, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 parenthetical rationale ('the way to structure a big assembly') implies when this is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives such as catia_add_component or catia_new_product. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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