manage_occurrences

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses important side effects: delete first reports dependencies and stops unless force=True, cascade=True also deletes pattern members, and ground with grounded=False releases a component. It does not cover permissions or all possible state changes, but it provides meaningful behavioral context for the main mutations.

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 compact and front-loads the core resource, then groups behavior by action before listing arguments. It avoids wasted prose, though the formatting is somewhat fragmentary and could be more clearly sectioned.

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?

This is a complex 11-parameter tool with no annotations and low schema coverage. The description covers action semantics and most parameter meanings, but it lacks usage guidance versus sibling tools and omits some operational context, such as how instance selection interacts with the actions. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 very low at 9%, so the description must compensate. It does define most parameters by action, including path, depth, definition pattern, axis direction, near point, within distance, grounded, cascade, and force, though some definitions are terse and the instance parameter is only described in 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 that this tool deals with components of the active assembly and enumerates specific actions: list, find, ground, and delete. This is a clear verb-and-resource statement, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as place_components or manage_constraints.

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 explains what each action does and gives some operational hints, such as grounding the first component and how delete initially stops on dependencies. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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