new_document

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses the important side effect that the new document becomes current, but is silent on whether an existing/unsaved document is replaced, whether anything is persisted to disk before `save_document`, and what is returned (name/id). Missing those for a creation tool leaves real ambiguity.

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 core action and side effect are front-loaded in one sentence. The follow-on paragraph is short and relevant, though it reads more like an orientation blurb about assemblies and drawings than guidance for this specific call.

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 one-optional-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the valid kinds, the current-document side effect, and where drawings go. Only the return value and interaction with an already-open document are left unstated.

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 the schema gives no description or enum for `kind`, so the description's enumeration of 'part' and 'assembly' is doing the essential work of preventing an invalid value. It also implicitly rules out kind='drawing' by routing drawings to `drawing_file`.

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 empty part or assembly') and names the discriminating values of `kind`. The side effect ('it becomes the current document') further pins down the behavior, though it never explicitly says how this differs from sibling `open_document` or `activate_document`.

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 second paragraph lays out the downstream assembly workflow (insert_component, add_mate, check_interference) and points drawings at `drawing_file`, which is genuine contextual guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus `open_document` or when a new document should not be created (e.g. existing file, unsaved current doc).

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