assembly_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that copied solids are erased, entries leave the manifest, and 'Masters are never touched'—important side effects and safety behavior. It doesn't mention reversibility or undo, but the core effects are adequately disclosed.

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 three sentences, leads with the primary action, and every sentence adds distinct value (purpose, effect, safety caveat). No redundancy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: removal, scope via names, and preservation of masters. Minor omissions like undo behavior or error cases are acceptable given the low complexity.

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?

The schema only defines 'names' as an optional array or null, but the description adds crucial meaning: 'names=None clears the whole assembly'. This clarifies the default behavior and the role of the parameter beyond the schema's structural definition.

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?

Description opens with 'Remove instances from the assembly', a clear verb+resource statement that sets this tool apart from siblings like assembly_place and assembly_list. It further clarifies the scope by specifying that copied solids are erased and manifest entries are removed.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: removing instances from an assembly, with names=None clearing the whole assembly. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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