place_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the file must already exist on disk, that grounding affects how constraints behave ('constraineds move it instead of the others'), and that the Y axis must be perpendicular with Z derived as X × Y. It omits anything about failure modes, undo semantics, or instance targeting when multiple Inventor instances are connected.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a structured Args block where each entry adds real information. Some prose in the grounded entry is wordier than needed, but no sentence is filler.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description supplies prerequisites, units, and orientation semantics, and an output schema covers return values. A brief note on the multi-instance 'instance' parameter or on what happens if the path is invalid would close the remaining 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 13%, so the description must compensate, and it does: x/y/z are given units (mm) and meaning ('where the component's origin goes'), grounded explains behavior not just type, and the axis parameters get concrete example vectors plus the perpendicularity constraint. The only uncovered parameter is 'instance', which does carry its own schema description.

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 and resource ('Place a part or sub-assembly into the active assembly'), which an agent can act on immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as place_many, constrain_insert, or import_step, which occupy adjacent territory.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow ('The file must exist on disk — save_document() the part first') and practical guidance on grounding the first component. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when to prefer place_many or constrain_insert instead.

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