sheet_metal_assign_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the library-copy side effect, the rollback guarantee on error (previous rule restored, copy deleted), and the exact return shape. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema conveys.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavior and return shape. The error-handling paragraph is dense but every clause is functional; no filler 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description documents the return object (component, rule, previous, copied_from_library), covers the failure mode and its remedy, and notes the library-copy semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result 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 100%, so the schema already documents rule, source, and component. The description reinforces the component default (root) but adds no syntax or format detail for `source` beyond the enum already present. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: makes a rule the active sheet metal rule of a component, with a default scope (root). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sheet_metal_list_rules and sheet_metal_create_rule, which list and create rather than assign.

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 says what to do when Fusion refuses the rule (FUSION_API_ERROR) and names the alternative: pass `rule` to the first flange tool instead. Also states the library-copy behavior up front, so the agent knows the operational context before invoking.

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