fusion_create_component

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds that the component is 'empty,' which is helpful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like what happens to existing selections, multiple calls, or return value. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description provides marginal additional transparency.

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 sentences, front-loading the core action. The second sentence adds general workflow context. No unnecessary words. Structurally efficient, though the second sentence could be perceived as generic advice rather than essential tool 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description omits important context: it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., component ID), prerequisites (e.g., an open design), or effects like naming uniqueness. For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent under-informed about expected outcomes and required prior state.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter (name, string) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention the 'name' parameter at all, failing to clarify what the name represents (e.g., component name), any constraints (e.g., uniqueness), or format. Since schema coverage is low, the description carries full burden and does not compensate.

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: 'Create a new (empty) component as an occurrence in the design.' It specifies the resource (component) and context (empty, as occurrence), distinguishing it from listing or joint tools. The verb 'create' is explicit and matches the tool name.

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 hints at a workflow: 'Build geometry, then joint components together to form an assembly,' implying the tool is used early in the process. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fusion_create_sketch for sketches), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The guidance is more of a general best practice than explicit usage instructions.

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