insert_library_part

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

With annotations already declaring this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond annotations: a crash hazard if the library is left open and the required follow-up call sequence. However, it says nothing about what the operation returns or how the part_id is resolved. This is strong added context but not a complete behavioral picture.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the required follow-up sequence, then the symbol-style detail. The style paragraph is long but every item earns its place by naming concrete valid values. Structure is clean and skimmable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well for sequencing, hazards, and symbol handling. The one gap is the unexplained required part_id, which an agent needs in order to invoke the tool correctly.

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 required part_id, and the description never explains what part_id is or where to obtain it (e.g., from search_library/get_library_part). Worse, it references a "style" field as if it were part of the call, but the schema exposes no style parameter, which can mislead the agent about the tool's inputs.

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?

Names a specific action and target: building a library part into the library currently open in the library editor, and explicitly routes the agent to add_part for the later placement step, distinguishing it from create_library_part/get_library_part. The phrase 'Build a library part into the Fusion library' is slightly muddled about whether it creates or inserts, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives explicit ordering constraints — call save_design, then close_library, before placing with add_part — and states the consequence of ignoring them (placing from a still-open library can crash Fusion). It also tells the agent when to override the default symbol behavior via style.

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