assembly_activate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose the key side effect (where new geometry goes) plus the exact return shape. It omits preconditions such as requiring an open/active document.

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-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the return contract and a concrete example. The example earns its place since there is no output schema, though it is slightly redundant with the prose.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers purpose, default behavior, and return values adequately. Error/failure behavior and document preconditions are the only notable gaps.

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 coverage is 100% so the schema already documents the single optional parameter; the description adds real meaning by explaining what omission does (activate root) and what activation implies for subsequent modeling operations.

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 (activate) and resource (an occurrence / the root component) and explains the practical effect — subsequent sketches and features land in that component. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling assembly_set_occurrence_state or document_activate.

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?

Explicitly covers the two calling modes: pass an occurrence to activate it, or omit the argument to return to the root component. It does not name alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., needing an occurrence ref from assembly_list), leaving some inference.

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