save_assembly

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the destructive profile is known. The description adds that the result carries "verified measurements and error evidence," which usefully hints at return content since no output schema exists, but it never warns that saving can overwrite existing files or what permissions/state are required.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the operation, which is good. But the middle sentence about geometry units is largely irrelevant to a save operation and the closing sentence about "verified measurements and error evidence" is oblique enough that it costs space without resolving anything.

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 write with no output schema, the description omits the essentials: what is written where, what happens on an existing target, and what the success/failure payload contains. Only a fragment of that burden is covered, and path semantics are left entirely undocumented.

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 50%: the overwrite parameter is well documented in the schema, but path has no description anywhere, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining path format, expected extension, or directory requirements. The unit note (mm, degrees, kg) is unrelated to either parameter and adds no invocation guidance.

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?

"Save assembly" is a clear verb+resource pair and the description names the target artifact, so an agent knows the basic operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like save_part, export, or close_part, and "independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" is unexplained jargon that does not help selection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus save_part (for parts) or export (for format conversion), nor any stated prerequisites such as the assembly being open or active. The only conditional behavior, refusing to overwrite unless permitted, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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