new_assembly

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no template selection is possible, but for a destructive-flagged tool it says nothing about whether the current document is discarded, whether unsaved work is affected, or whether the new assembly becomes active.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('from the installed default template') is present rather than buried.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema creation tool this is close to adequate, but it leaves open what state the session ends in (active document, returned handle) and what existing work, if any, is lost — relevant given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description usefully clarifies that no template or name argument exists because defaults are used.

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 ('Create a new native assembly') plus the source of the document ('installed default template'), which separates it from open_assembly and insert_component. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'from the installed default template' implies this is the starting-point tool with no template choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. open_assembly or new_part, and no stated prerequisites such as whether an existing document must be closed first.

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