Standard Parts: Insert

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false, so the description does real work: it discloses the block's attribute/XDATA payload (DESIG/STD/SIZE/MAT, ACADMCP_MECH) and, importantly, that all refusals happen before any write, i.e. the operation is effectively atomic. It does not mention layer creation behavior, undo/transaction interaction, or whether it overwrites an existing insert at the same point.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact enumeration of the payload and refusals. Mostly earns its place, though the embedded 'nothing is drawn approximately' aside and the moderate list length add some stylistic padding.

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 write tool with an output schema, the description supplies the behavioral and failure-mode context the schema and single annotation can't: payload contents, validation sources and the full refusal set. What's missing is any note on interaction with transactions/undo and whether repeated inserts are idempotent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning on top: it explains the designation formats are table-validated, that 'view' must be one the family actually has, that material feeds the MAT attribute and XDATA, and that non-finite coordinates/rotation are rejected. These constraints go beyond the schema's per-field text.

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 ('Define the part's block once, insert it, and write its `std_part` XDATA'), so an agent knows this inserts a standard-part block reference plus XDATA. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like block_insert, mech_part_draw, or std_part_list, though the parts-list remark hints at the catalogue relationship.

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 implied by the described pre-write refusals (unknown designation, bad view, missing nominal length), which tells the agent the tool validates against transcribed tables. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative (e.g. std_part_list for browsing, block_insert for generic blocks), and no stated prerequisites such as catalogue availability.

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