new_assembly

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is an empty assembly (no components) built from a template, but says nothing about where the document is created, whether it becomes the active document, or how failures (missing template) behave.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it leaves room for a short clause on preconditions at no real cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a document-creation tool with zero-required, zero-documented parameters, the description omits the created document's name/location and whether it is left open as the active document - gaps an agent would care about.

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 schema alone leaves template_path opaque. The phrase 'default or given assembly template' does clarify that an omitted template falls back to the default, which is real added meaning for the single parameter, though it gives no hint about path format or overriding behavior.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('new empty assembly in SolidWorks'), which separates it from new_part and new_drawing in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource noun is distinctive enough that an agent can route correctly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must be invoked before insert_component/add_mate), and does not contrast with new_part or new_drawing. Usage is only implied by the word 'new'.

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