fusion_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation through 'create/add' but does not explain effects on the active document, how 'as-built' joints are resolved, whether changes are reversible, or what the response/error behavior looks like. The optional motion limits are disclosed, but key side effects are not.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the main actions and optional limits with no filler. Slight awkwardness in 'create/instance' and the unqualified term 'as-built' keep it from being fully polished, but the length and structure are appropriate.

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 multi-action assembly tool with nested parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain how to configure each action. The current text is only a high-level summary and leaves geometry, anchor selection, and action-specific behavior undocumented, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 missing parameter documentation. It does contextualize `motion`, `minimum`, and `maximum` by naming joint types and limits, but it leaves critical fields like `one`, `two`, `origin_token`, `translation_mm`, `component`, `source`, `axis`, and `allow_shared_definition_edit` unexplained.

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 specific operations: create/instance components and add rigid, revolute, or slider as-built joints with optional motion limits. This is enough to distinguish it from inspection-focused siblings like fusion_assembly_tree or fusion_component_context, though 'create/instance' is slightly compressed and the assembly context is implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fusion_create_feature or fusion_component_context. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection conditions are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the action enum and sibling names.

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