Select a native assembly configuration or exact top-level component configurations with preflight checks, native readback, and rollback on failure; no save is performed.
Select an existing native assembly configuration OR exact top-level component configurations. Preflight, native readback and rollback on failure; no save.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| components | No | ||
| configuration | No | ||
| document_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real value beyond the annotations: preflight validation, native readback, and rollback on failure describe the failure semantics, and 'no save' clarifies persistence scope. It does not contradict destructiveHint=true, since rollback applies only on failure. What remains unstated is why the operation is destructive (it mutates the in-memory assembly state without persisting) and what happens to previously active configurations.
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 short clauses with no filler; the mode selection is front-loaded and the behavioral contract follows immediately. Every phrase carries information.
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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description covers the selection model and the safety contract (preflight/readback/rollback, no save). A brief note on required preconditions and on how the readback is surfaced is the only notable gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the semantics of the configuration-vs-components alternative and scopes components to 'top-level', which is useful and not in the schema. It says nothing about document_path, the 128-item cap, or expected string formats for component names.
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 concrete verb ('Select') and resource ('existing native assembly configuration') plus the alternate mode ('exact top-level component configurations'), which maps directly onto the schema's oneOf. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling, pro_assembly_configurations, so an agent must infer the listing-vs-applying split.
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 two-mode framing implies when to use the configuration path versus the per-component path, and 'no save' signals it is an in-memory, session-scoped action. However, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (must the assembly already be open? must a config exist?) or on when to prefer pro_assembly_configurations first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.