pro_assembly_clone

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the packed-and-go semantics, that referenced files are included, that existing destinations are refused (safe failure, no overwrite), and that the copy is not activated in the session. Annotations already cover read-only/destructive hints, so these additions are genuinely useful rather than redundant.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by two tight constraints. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description could say more about what is returned (e.g., the new path or copied-file list), and it omits the `prefix` parameter entirely. Still, for a three-parameter copy operation the essentials — isolation, file inclusion, refusal of existing destinations, non-activation — are all present.

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 only 33%, with just `prefix` documented, but the description compensates partly by stating the destination must be a *new absolute* directory that must not already exist, which clarifies `output_directory`. `document_path` and the prefix interaction (avoiding already-open document names) remain unaddressed in the description.

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 — "Create an isolated native Pack and Go copy with its referenced CAD files" — which no sibling tool duplicates. It is unambiguous what artifact the tool produces, though it does not name or contrast any related tool.

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?

Implied usage is clear (make a portable copy without disturbing the active document), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives. The constraints given are preconditions rather than routing advice.

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