assembly_create_rigid_group

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well for core behavior: it explains that occurrences move as one, requires different occurrence refs, and states 'Nothing is left on failure,' which discloses atomic failure behavior. It does not cover permissions or all side effects, but the main behavior is transparent.

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?

The purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded, followed by failure behavior and return shape. The example is useful and does not obscure the key call requirements.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by stating prerequisites, failure semantics, return object shape, and a concrete example. That is sufficient for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents occurrences, name, include_children, and even the occurrence path example. The description reinforces the two-occurrence minimum and assembly_list source, but mostly repeats schema content rather than adding substantial new parameter meaning.

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 verb and resource: 'Lock occurrences together so they move as one (a rigid group in the root component).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from assembly joint creation and timeline group tools by specifying the rigid-group concept and root-component scope.

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 gives concrete usage conditions: at least two different occurrences, using 'occurrence:<path>' refs from assembly_list, with INVALID_PARAMS otherwise. It lacks explicit routing to alternatives such as assembly_create_joint or timeline_create_group, but the context for when this tool applies is clear.

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