insert_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: origin placement is exact and verified, the fixed parameter's effect, and the default behavior of fixing only the first component. It also states what the return value includes (name, placement, box). This is richer than a typical insert tool description, though it omits potential side effects like assembly interdependence or overwriting existing components.

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 description is concise but information-dense. It front-loads the core action, then layers behavioral details, default behavior, and return info without redundancy. Each sentence earns its place—no filler or vague phrasing.

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?

While the description explains the action, defaults, and return value, it omits a critical prerequisite: that an assembly must already be open to insert into the 'current assembly'. It also leaves the path parameter's format unspecified. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, these gaps could lead an agent to misuse it in an invalid context.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explicitly covers x_mm, y_mm, z_mm (origin coordinates) and fixed (pin/unpin), including the default for fixed. However, the 'path' parameter is only indirectly referenced via 'Insert a .sldprt' — it does not explicitly state that the path must be a valid file path to a SolidWorks part file. This is a notable gap for the most critical parameter.

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 tool inserts a .sldprt file into the current assembly at a specified origin. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create geometry (e.g., add_box, new_part) or modify assemblies (e.g., add_mate, set_component_transform). The verb 'insert' and resource '.sldprt' are specific and unambiguous.

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 (working on an assembly, inserting an existing part file) and contrasts with geometry-creation tools by requiring a file path. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need to create a new part from scratch) or name an alternative tool. The context is clear but exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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