assembly_new_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the new component is empty, that exactly one occurrence is created, that parent defaults to root, and that the whole call is undone on failure. It also documents return shape, which is important because there is no output schema.

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 core action is front-loaded and the description is generally efficient. The return-shape details and example are useful given the lack of an output schema, though they add some length and slight redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the created objects, parent behavior, offset semantics, failure atomicity, and expected return structure.

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 all three parameters. The description reinforces parent placement and translate_mm units, but it adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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: create an empty component with one new occurrence. It also specifies scope (under root or inside the parent component) and optional offset, which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that add occurrences or create components from bodies.

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 clear usage context: create the component first, then build geometry after activating it via assembly_activate or by targeting the component. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives such as assembly_add_occurrence or assembly_component_from_bodies, but the intended workflow is clear.

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