Insert an instance

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Insert' implies mutation of the target assembly, but the description does not disclose whether the assembly is modified in place, any permission requirements, side effects on existing instances, or what the operation returns. This is comparable to a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and key cross-document rule are front-loaded, making the description easy to scan and process.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the main insertion modes and cross-document version behavior, but it relies heavily on the schema for parameter details and does not explain the operation's effect on the target assembly or expected result.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds high-level mode context (part vs. whole Part Studio vs. assembly, and version for cross-document pulls), but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Insert') and resource ('a part, a whole Part Studio or another assembly into an assembly'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like onshape_create_assembly or onshape_transform_instance. It also adds the cross-document nuance of inserting from a version.

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 useful context, especially the rule to insert from a version when pulling from a different document. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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