insert_component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing the position unit (mm) and that rotation is about the Z axis, but says nothing about mutual exclusivity of path/definition, error behavior, or reversibility.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the sourcing options, then positional details. There is little waste, though the parameter-level facts could be organized more scannably.

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 7-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond safety, the description covers the core insert workflow but omits the meaning of tag/name/material, whether path and definition are mutually exclusive, and what happens on failure. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 14% (just 'position'), so the description must compensate, and it does explain path (with a concrete example), definition (definition = name), position units, and rotation_deg semantics. It leaves tag, name, and material completely undocumented, so roughly half the parameters still lack meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('a component') and disambiguates the two insertion sources (a .skp file via path, or an in-model definition via name). It implicitly separates itself from primitive creators like create_box/create_shape, but never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It explains the two ways to source a component, which implicitly tells the agent when to use which parameter (path vs definition). However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over create_shape, transform_entities, or list_components, and no mention of prerequisites such as an open model.

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