add_assembly_instance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether duplicates are allowed, required permissions, or if instances are placed at origin), leaving agents unaware of important behavioral traits.

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?

A single sentence with no excess words. It is appropriately brief for a straightforward tool, though additional context could be included without significant bloat.

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?

The description is too minimal for a 6-parameter tool with no output schema. It lacks explanation of the process (e.g., adding to which assembly element, how partStudioElementId is affected by isAssembly) and omits return value or error conditions.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It does not clarify parameter relationships (e.g., isAssembly affecting partStudioElementId interpretation) nor provide usage tips for optional partId.

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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'part or sub-assembly instance to an assembly', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like create_assembly (create new) and set_instance_position (modify existing).

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 implies usage context (adding to an assembly) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like create_assembly for new assemblies or transform_instance for repositioning.

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