Add a raw assembly feature

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

With no readOnly/destructive annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'Post' and 'hand-written' convey that this is an unvalidated write and a fallback rather than a high-level helper. It does not disclose validation, failure, or permission behavior, but the raw/escape-hatch nature is explicitly communicated.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the use-case qualifier in a separable clause. Every word earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema are mostly sufficient to select and aim the call. The arbitrary 'feature' object and absent output schema could benefit from an example or a pointer to feature specs, but the escape-hatch framing sets correct expectations.

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 100%, so the baseline applies and the schema already documents doc, ws, elem, and feature. The description adds only that the payload is hand-written and assembly-specific, which does not change invocation semantics.

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 ('Post ... payload') and resource ('assembly feature'), immediately distinguishing it from the generic add_feature and the dedicated assembly mate tools. The escape-hatch framing makes its role unmistakable.

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?

It tells the agent to use this tool for 'mate types with no tool here,' implying dedicated mate tools should be preferred when available. It does not name those tools explicitly, but the condition is clear.

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