Create a component occurrence in Autodesk Fusion 360, and optionally activate it as the build target to direct subsequent modeling operations.
Create a component occurrence, optionally making it the build target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| activate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation; the description adds that creation can optionally set the build target. It does not elaborate on open-world side effects or document context, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence conveys the core action and the optional parameter behavior with no redundant words. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain return behavior, prerequisites such as an active document, or what 'name' should refer to. For a creation tool, the missing operational context leaves an agent to rely on unstated assumptions.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies the 'activate' parameter via 'optionally making it the build target', but it gives no additional meaning for the required 'name' 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a component occurrence') and names the distinct optional behavior of making it the build target. No sibling tool covers the same create-occurrence operation, so it is clearly distinguishable.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of related component tools such as fusion_set_active_component or fusion_list_occurrences. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.