create_assembly

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON-serialisable dict that must be passed back, which is crucial for proper usage. However, it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or required permissions.

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 concise with two sentences explaining the purpose and return value, followed by a clear args section. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage flow (create and pass to subsequent tools). However, it does not explain what an assembly is in this context or any prerequisites, which might be needed for complete understanding.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage. The description adds 'Human-readable name for the assembly' for the 'name' parameter, which provides semantic context beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it could give more constraints like uniqueness or length limits.

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 clearly states 'Create a new empty assembly', identifying the verb (create) and resource (empty assembly). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_assembly_part or compose_assembly_parts by emphasizing 'empty' and noting the return value must be passed to subsequent assembly tools, indicating it is the initial step.

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 implies that this tool is used as the first step in assembly creation by stating the returned state must be passed to subsequent assembly tools. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling assembly tools.

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