save_assembly

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that it saves to a .sldasm file, implying a write operation and file system interaction, but does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, requires certain conditions, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 very short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the purpose. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and no output schema, so baseline completeness could be higher. However, given the zero schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description fails to provide essential context such as file handling behavior and parameter specifics. An agent might not know whether to include '.sldasm' in the path or if the tool creates directories. It is incomplete for a file-saving operation.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter. The description says 'Save the current assembly to a native .sldasm file', which implies that 'path' is the file location, but it does not clarify if the path should include the file extension, whether directories are created automatically, or any format requirements. This is a significant gap given the zero coverage.

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 verb ('Save') and the resource (current assembly) and specifies the output format (.sldasm). This distinguishes it from save_part, which is a sibling, though it does not explicitly differentiate between saving assemblies and parts. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 when to use this tool: when the user wants to save an assembly for later reopening. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like save_part, but the context of 'assembly' is clear. No contraindications are provided, but the purpose is obvious enough that an agent can infer usage.

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