run_assembly_plan

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavior: sequential per-step execution, real-time receipts via get_active_assembly_info, stop-and-report on failure with no deletion, final mate count verification, save only on verified success, and return structure {ok, steps, verification, saved, warnings}. All critical traits are covered.

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 moderately long but packed with essential information. It front-loads the main action and uses bullet-like structure (Compuertas, Verificación final) for clarity. The English translation at the end aids comprehension. Every sentence contributes value, though some consolidation could improve conciseness.

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 complexity (sequential live assembly with failure handling and verification), no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, failure modes, verification criteria, return format, and overrides. It leaves no critical gap for the agent to execute correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. While it does not explicitly list parameter names, it explains the override flags' purpose and conditions (override_unmated for unmated components, override_low_confidence for confidence gates). The assembly_plan_id is implied by 'AssemblyPlan registrado'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 the tool executes a recorded AssemblyPlan by inserting and mating components one by one, and explicitly distinguishes it from batch execution (execute_batch). It uses a specific verb ('Ejecuta') and resource ('AssemblyPlan registrado'), making 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: when to use (sequential live assembly), when not to (batch execution due to real rebuilds and rollback limitations), and conditions for overrides (go_recommendation, unmated components). It even mentions failure handling and alternative mitigation (set_component_suppression).

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