insert_bom_table

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutating operation. It states the table is placed on the active drawing, but says nothing about whether the drawing must be open/active, failure modes for non-assembly views, interaction with existing BOM tables, or reversibility.

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 scoping information (assembly view, active drawing) is front-loaded. Nothing is redundant relative to the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameter schema is fully documented, so the remaining need is behavioral context. For a drawing-mutating tool with zero annotations, the description is only minimally complete: prerequisites and side effects are left unstated.

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 100% and the nested schema explains view_name, template_path, bom_type, and the x_mm/y_mm anchor defaults in detail. The description adds only the loose phrase "for an assembly view" and does not explain bom_type or template behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Insert") with a specific resource ("bill-of-materials table") and scopes it to "an assembly view on the active drawing." That is enough to distinguish it from the many drawing-annotation and view-creation siblings, though it names no sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader can infer it requires an active drawing containing an assembly view. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what to do if no assembly view exists, and no alternative tool named.

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