compose_assembly_parts

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses important behavioral side effects: on success it opens Kiln's interactive 3D stage, oversized meshes are decimated automatically for the stage, and the PNG preview is only a starting point. It does not mention overwrite behavior or failure modes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by behavior, Args, and a labeled INLINE 3D STAGE section. The stage explanation is a bit verbose, especially the parenthetical host-specific details, but each sentence contributes useful operational context.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the operation, both parameters, the output file, the viewer side effect, and automatic mesh decimation. It omits overwrite semantics and error conditions, but an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, but the Args block adds meaningful semantics: assembly_json is 'a JSON string of the current assembly state' and output_path is 'where the composed STL will be written.' It does not detail the internal structure of assembly_json, but it compensates reasonably for a two-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific statement, 'Compose all assembly parts into a single output STL file,' and elaborates with 'Merges the individual part meshes according to their positions and writes the combined model to output_path.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and output, and distinguishes it from sibling merge/compose tools by targeting all assembly parts into one STL.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor are alternatives named. The phrase 'current assembly state' and the merging behavior imply it is meant for turning an assembled model into a combined STL, but the description does not contrast it with similar sibling tools like compose_models or merge_stl.

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