insert_component

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the first component is auto-fixed, subsequent components need mates, and an assembly with floating components is considered wrong even if it looks correct. It also mentions that the tool returns instance metadata.

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 well-structured with a bold warning, bullet-like arg list, return info, and related tools. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but it remains efficient.

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 of CAD assembly insertion, the description is very complete. It covers the workflow, prerequisites (need for mates), common pitfalls, references a design guide, and specifies the return type. No output schema is present, but the description mentions returning 'instance metadata', which is adequate.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), but the tool description provides clear explanations for each parameter: file_path (absolute path), x/y/z_mm (insertion point in mm), and config_name (specific configuration or empty string for active config). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Insert a part or sub-assembly into the active assembly at the given XYZ.' It specifies the verb 'insert' and the resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'place_and_mate' and 'stack_components' by noting that it does not complete the assembly on its own.

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 says 'insert_component alone does NOT finish the job' and provides guidance on when to use it (only as part of a larger process) and when not (if mating entities cannot be identified, use get_active_assembly_info or ask the user). It also lists alternative tools like 'stack_components' and 'add_mate_by_face_position'.

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