Insert an existing component definition into the current SketchUp model at a chosen origin, with lengths and coordinates in metres. Add repeated objects without redrawing geometry.
Place an instance of an existing component definition into the model at a given origin. All lengths and coordinates are in metres.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact name of the component definition | |
| origin | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0+make2017Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely does not. It never says what happens when origin is omitted (origin is optional), whether the placement is undoable, or what the call returns. The units note is useful but is really parameter-level information rather than behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the units constraint following. Nothing here is redundant with the schema.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description covers purpose and units but stops short of the details an agent needs to call it confidently (origin default, coordinate order, return value). Adequate but visibly incomplete.
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 50%: name is documented in the schema, origin is not. The description partially compensates by declaring that all lengths and coordinates are in metres, which the schema omits, but it leaves the axis ordering of the 3-item origin array and the default when origin is absent unstated.
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+resource ("place an instance of an existing component definition") and scopes it to a location in the model. The word "existing" implicitly separates it from create_component, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
Usage is only implied: "an existing component definition" signals that the definition must already exist (via list_components/create_component) before this tool applies. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite ordering, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.