create_assembly

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that this creates something, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, failure modes, or what happens to the assembly after creation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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?

For a simple three-parameter creation tool with a fully described schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits what the tool returns, whether success is indicated, and any behavioral constraints such as document existence requirements beyond the implied 'existing document.'

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 input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage. The description only adds the 'existing document' context and does not explain relationships such as whether workspaceId must match documentId or any naming constraints.

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 names a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('a new Assembly'), and scopes it to an existing document. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like create_document and create_part_studio.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related prerequisites beyond 'existing document.' It does not differentiate from create_document, create_part_studio, or add_assembly_instance.

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