place_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that all files are validated before anything is placed, that atomic collapses the operation into one undo step with rollback on failure, and that skip_if_exists makes re-runs idempotent. It does not cover permissions, what the response contains, or behavior when the target assembly is not open, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is a tight Args block with no filler. Some phrases are compressed to the point of ambiguity ('where the part's own X/Y point; give both') and the bare 'mm.' fragment, which costs a point on clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, units, atomicity, and idempotency, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The `instance` parameter (multi-connection selection) is left entirely to the schema, and error/response shape on partial failure is unaddressed.

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 25% — components is an untyped array of free-form objects — and the description compensates fully by enumerating its keys (path, x/y/z, x_axis, y_axis, grounded, name), noting the 'origin' alias, the mm unit convention, that axes/name are optional and must be given as a pair. It also explains the semantics of atomic and skip_if_exists beyond their bare defaults.

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 parts / sub-assemblies into the active assembly') plus the batch scope ('one or hundreds in one call'), which is exactly the distinction an agent needs. The reference to save_document and the active-assembly target further pins down what it operates on.

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 ('files must exist on disk (save_document first)') and prescriptive guidance ('ground the first component of every assembly', 'safe to run a list again after an error' for skip_if_exists). It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. versus import_step or manage_occurrences), so it falls short of a 5.

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