assembly_place

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains side effects: the master stays in place, the copy is moved and rotated, and an instance is recorded in a manifest. It also clarifies the anchor semantics, giving the agent important information about how placement coordinates are interpreted.

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 front-loaded with the action and packs a lot of useful information into two sentences. It is slightly verbose with the metaphorical 'sentence these copies belong together' but overall each clause adds value, making it well-structured and not bloated.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how parameters interact, the side effect on a manifest, and the conceptual purpose of assembly. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable. This is a complex tool handled very well.

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 provides no descriptions for any parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains all parameters: x/y/z as landing coordinates, name as the manifest record key, rot_z as rotation about the anchor point, anchor with its 'min' and 'center' values and a practical use case, and master_handle as the master part. This is exemplary compensation for the schema gap.

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 states the tool places a copy of a master part into the assembly, using the specific verb 'Place' and identifying the resource ('assembly'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the COPY behavior and the registration/pose aspects.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need assembly semantics (copies belonging together) that a bare drawing cannot express, and it explicitly mentions that contact_report and assembly_list read the manifest created here. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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