insert_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the first component is auto-fixed, subsequent components require mates, and floating components are invalid. It also states the return type (instance metadata). It lacks details on error handling or permissions but provides essential behavioral context.

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 the primary purpose and important caveat. The parameter list is clear but slightly verbose. Overall, every sentence adds value, but the parameter descriptions could be more compact.

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 tool's role in a complex CAD workflow, the description covers the insertion action, critical mating requirement, parameter details, return value, related tools, and a reference to full workflow documentation. It provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 0%, so the description fully explains each parameter: file_path, x_mm/y_mm/z_mm (insertion point), and config_name. It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying file type (.sldprt or .sldasm), coordinate frame (assembly frame), and default behavior for config_name.

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 the tool inserts a part or sub-assembly into the active assembly at given XYZ coordinates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like place_and_mate and the various mate tools by emphasizing that this tool only inserts and does not mate.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool and what additional steps are needed. It warns that insert_component alone does not finish the job, explains the auto-fix for the first component and the need for mates thereafter, and suggests calling get_active_assembly_info or asking the user if mating entities are unclear.

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