record_assembly_plan

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

The description explicitly declares it is read-only ('asesoría: no muta nada') and provides detailed behavioral constraints: skeleton must be the fixed component, each component must have at least one mate, confidence scale, etc. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden and does so excellently.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with bullet points for parameters and clear separation of Spanish and English sections. It efficiently uses sentences to convey necessary detail, though slight trimming could improve brevity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers parameter details, behavioral constraints (e.g., no mates block run), and even describes the return value structure, exceeding what is minimally required.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides thorough explanations for most parameters: intent, skeleton (with structure), components (with nested fields), save_path, confidence scale, and use_active_assembly. However, the 'assumptions' parameter is not described, leaving a minor gap.

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 records a structured assembly plan (SKELETON → list of parts → plan of mates) and is advisory only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_assembly_plan. It uses specific verbs and resources, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before touching SolidWorks'), that it's only advisory, and directs to show plan to designer then execute with run_assembly_plan. Also notes that components with no mates or required params block run_assembly_plan.

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