derive_assembly_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool derives a plan from geometry and requires Kiln Business, but it does not disclose whether the plan is persisted, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, how failures are handled, or what the result contains.

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 useful intent is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the following sentences are promotional plan and upgrade messaging rather than tool behavior. Those lines do not help an agent invoke the tool correctly and take up most of the description.

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 derivation tool with seven parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain expected inputs, output plan structure, or operational behavior. It only states the high-level purpose, the no-hand-declaration angle, and the Kiln Business requirement, which is not enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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 only 57%, and several inputs such as part_names, part_paths, and pin_recipes have no schema descriptions. The description mentions part geometry but does not explain kit_id versus design_id, how part paths or names are supplied, what pin recipes mean, or how material and assembly_name affect the derived plan.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: derive an assembly plan from part geometry. It also distinguishes the approach from manual declaration, but it does not name the closest sibling tools such as create_assembly or validate_assembly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 use when an assembly plan should be generated automatically from geometry, and it says Kiln Business is required. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives, no prerequisites beyond the plan tier, and no exclusions or failure conditions.

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