set_component_suppression

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the behavioral effects of each state: 'suppressed' means hidden and excluded from BOM, 'resolved' fully loaded, 'lightweight' graphics only. It also describes the config_scope options and notes the return value. No contradictions exist.

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 purpose and includes a structured 'Args' section. However, it repeats information in both Spanish and English, which adds redundancy. Otherwise, it is well-organized and each sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input semantics and typical usage. It also specifies the return value (updated state). It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., active assembly) or error handling, but the CAD context is implied.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema types. It explains 'component_name' comes from 'get_active_assembly_info', defines each state with its effect, and provides example usage for 'config_names'. Parameters are well-documented.

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 changes the component load state and provides typical use cases like suppressing/resolving for configuration variants and using lightweight for large assemblies. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as 'set_mate_suppression' and 'set_components_suppression' by targeting a single component's load state.

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 gives concrete examples of when to use each state (e.g., 'suppress/resolve to build configuration variants' and 'lightweight on big assemblies with hundreds of fasteners'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., the plural version 'set_components_suppression'), so the guidance is clear but not fully exclusive.

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