create_assembly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the new assembly becomes the active document and is ready for component insertion, mating, and assembly-level operations. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., missing template) or any UI side effects, which would make it more complete.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence summarizes the core action, and additional details are front-loaded without any fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers creation, activation state, and readiness for assembly operations. It could mention the return value type, but output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 100% with descriptions for name, template, and components. The description adds context about using the default assembly template and the assembly being ready for operations, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states 'Create a new SolidWorks assembly document' with a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_part and create_drawing by specifying it's for assemblies and mentions assembly-specific operations.

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 description implies when to use (for assemblies), but does not explicitly contrast with alternative creation tools (e.g., create_part) or state when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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