insert_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the critical failure mode that an empty component causes a silent refusal and surfaces as an error rather than a fabricated success, and it clarifies the coordinate system and prerequisite state.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by the prerequisite, coordinate convention, and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the schema.

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, so return values need not be explained. The description supplies the key prerequisite, positional convention, and failure-mode warning, making it complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly within the SolidWorks workflow.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that position is measured from the assembly origin and by imposing a content constraint on file_path: the component file must contain solid geometry.

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 uses a precise verb and resource: 'Insert a part or sub-assembly into the active assembly.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like create_assembly, load_assembly, and add_mate by specifying that it inserts geometry into an existing active assembly.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Call create_assembly first.' However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5 on when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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