make_assemblyCreate an assembly container to hold linked parts, returning its handle and name for use in later design steps.
Create an App::Part container to hold linked parts. Returns {handle, name}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Assembly |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds that it returns {handle, name}. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether it requires an active document or how the new container is attached to the current document context.
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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and it includes the return value. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and return format. It omits the prerequisite of an active document and any note about how the assembly container relates to the current document, which are relevant given the surrounding document-management sibling tools.
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%: the description never mentions the 'name' input parameter. The schema's default and title make the parameter self-explanatory, but the description was expected to compensate for the low coverage and does not.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('App::Part container to hold linked parts'), which clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like add_part or merge_assembly. Including the return shape ({handle, name}) further pins down its role.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or contrast with alternatives such as add_part or merge_assembly. It only states the action itself, so an agent gets no help deciding between assembly creation and part insertion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.