ground_occurrence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a bidirectional state mutation (grounded=True vs False) rather than a one-way write, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about preconditions (active assembly, component being an occurrence), failure modes, or whether the change is reversible.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the action and backed by per-argument notes; nothing is padded. The docstring 'Args:' formatting is slightly mechanical but costs nothing in length.

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. However, for a state-changing assembly operation with zero annotation coverage, the description omits the invocation context an agent needs (must an assembly be active? must the document be open?) and any error behavior, leaving a real gap.

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 33%, and the description compensates well: it explains that 'index' is a component index obtained from list_occurrences and defines the boolean semantics of 'grounded' ('True to ground, False to release'), neither of which appears in the schema. The third parameter ('instance') is covered by the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Ground (fix in space) or unground a component', and the parenthetical clarifies what grounding means. An agent can distinguish this from constraint-oriented siblings like constrain or constrain_faces, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Provides one useful prerequisite: the index comes from list_occurrences, which is named explicitly. It does not say when to ground versus release versus use a constraint (constrain/constrain_insert) instead, so the agent must infer the assembly-fixing use case.

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