assembly_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses persistent joints, the need to call solve after moving parents, and atomic rollback semantics. However, it does not mention potential side effects beyond document state, such as file saving or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 compact and efficiently structured: a clear one-line definition, a bullet-like workflow, a mate-ref rule, and a pointer for full details. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is a complex state machine with 11 parameters and no annotations, but an output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description provides the high-level workflow and persistent-joint behavior, yet leaves many operation-specific parameters and edge cases undocumented. It is adequate for orientation but not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the mate reference structure ({part plus face/anchor/point}) and names parameters like ground, part, joint_type, trim, and to_step in the workflow, but many parameters (doc_name, name, gap_samples, operation, a, b) remain unexplained. Delegating to operation_help is helpful but not sufficient for standalone parameter understanding.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an 'Independent assembly state machine with PERSISTENT joints (FreeCAD Assembly workbench)' and explicitly contrasts it with the one-shot `assemble` sibling, making its unique role obvious. It also lists the core workflow operations, giving a specific verb+resource model.

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?

Provides an explicit step-by-step workflow: start(ground=part) -> add_component(part) -> mate(..., trim?) -> solve -> verify -> complete. It also names the alternative `assemble` for one-shot use, and points to operation_help for full details, effectively telling when and how to use this tool.

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