create_assembly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions creation and template selection, but does not disclose whether a connected Inventor instance is required, whether the new document is activated, how it is saved, or what happens if the name conflicts.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and parameter details immediately after. There is very little wasted text.

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 simple creation tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the document type and template options, but it leaves connection/instance context and document lifecycle behavior to the schema.

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?

The schema describes the instance parameter, while the description adds useful meaning for the other two: name is optional and template can be metric, english, or a full .iam path. This compensates well for the low schema description coverage, though instance behavior is left to 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 states a specific verb and resource: create a new empty assembly document (.iam). It is easy to distinguish from create_part and other assembly tools because it explicitly says assembly and empty.

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 implied by the clear purpose, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of create_part, place_component, or other document-creation tools. Template guidance is present, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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