insert_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that placement is read back and verified, that fixed controls whether the component is grounded or mateable, and what the call returns (name, placement, box). It doesn't cover failure modes for an invalid path, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core action and coordinate semantics, then the fixed behavior. Slight redundancy between 'with its ORIGIN at (x, y, z) mm' and 'The part's own origin lands exactly on that point', but every sentence otherwise carries information.

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 covers the action, coordinate units, the fixed semantics, the default behavior, and the return payload. Only edge cases (invalid path, unit assumptions for the returned box) are left unspecified.

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 compensate, and it does: path is tied to .sldprt/.sldasm, x/y/z are tied to the origin landing point in mm, and fixed is given true/false semantics plus a default rule. Units and meaning are supplied for essentially every 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?

States a specific verb (insert), resource (.sldprt / .sldasm as sub-assembly), and the exact placement semantics (origin at x,y,z mm). An agent can distinguish this from set_component_transform or delete_component without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly explains the fixed parameter's operational consequence (pins vs. free for mates) and the default behavior (only the first component is fixed to give the assembly a ground). No explicit when-to-use-vs-sibling routing, but the context is unambiguous.

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