make_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It partially compensates by disclosing the return shape ("Returns {handle, name}"), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it omits whether this mutates the active document, what scope the container lives in, and any prerequisites for use.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding: the action first, the return value second. Nothing is wasted, though there is also very little content.

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 container-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the returned handle/name, which is the minimum an agent needs to chain a subsequent call. It still leaves out document context, side effects, and any distinction from related assembly 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% for the single `name` parameter, and the description says nothing about it — not that it is optional, not the default value, not the naming constraints. The agent must read the schema to learn anything about this argument, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create an App::Part container to hold linked parts"), and naming App::Part distinguishes it from the sibling add_part and make_body at a conceptual level. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest siblings (add_part, make_body, merge_assembly).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must a document be open/active?), and no mention of alternatives such as add_part or merge_assembly. The phrase "to hold linked parts" hints at intent but leaves the agent to infer the workflow position.

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