insert_component

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the immediate insertion behavior and the returned placement handle, but it does not mention side effects on the assembly, auth requirements, reversibility, or how the 'linked' option affects behavior.

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 two short, meaningful sentences with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. The main operation is front-loaded and the return value is stated immediately.

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 tool with three parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It says what the tool does and returns, but omits the semantics of all parameters, the effect of 'linked', and any prerequisites or side effects an agent would need to call it 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 0%, and the description provides no meaning for assembly_handle, path, or linked. The 'path' parameter is particularly ambiguous, and the description does nothing to clarify its format or purpose.

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 action ('Insert'), the target resource ('native part/subassembly occurrence'), and the context ('in an explicit assembly'), plus the return value ('placement handle'). It does not explicitly name or distinguish alternatives, but the verb and resource make the tool's purpose specific enough to tell apart from obvious siblings like create_part or create_feature.

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 wording implies this tool is used when you need to place a part or subassembly occurrence into an explicit assembly, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites such as requiring an already-open assembly.

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