sw_insert_component

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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the description need only add context. It adds almost none: nothing about what happens if the active document is a part rather than an assembly, whether the source file is referenced/linked versus copied, or whether the operation is reversible via sw_undo.

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 with zero redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably undersized rather than oversized for a five-parameter mutation tool.

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 exists, so the description should carry more of the burden. For a mutation tool with five parameters and only generic annotations, it omits the active-document precondition, error behavior, and the result of the operation (e.g., a new component entry visible via sw_list_components).

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 100%, with all five parameters fully documented in the input schema (path, doc, fixed, position in model mm, configuration). The description adds no clarification or constraints beyond that schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Insert') and a specific resource ('saved part or sub-assembly') plus the target ('active assembly'), which is far more precise than the bare tool name. It stops short of differentiating from the closest sibling, sw_insert_fastener, which also inserts a component-like object.

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 phrase 'into the active assembly' implies the prerequisite that an assembly document must be active, but the description never states when to choose this over sw_insert_fastener, sw_new_document, or sw_open, nor any exclusions or failure conditions.

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