creo_add_project_component_mate_align

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the destructive and side effects: failure before save deletes the partially added component, older versions of only that assembly family are recycled, and the assembly is regenerated and saved. It also discloses verification via API readback, duplicate plane rejection, and reporting of packaged/underconstrained state.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It carries a lot of necessary operational detail, though the run-on structure could be split into shorter sentences for easier processing.

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 this complex, the description covers an impressive amount: constraint types, side meaning, verification, optional full constraint, regeneration, save, version cleanup, and failure rollback. It does not describe return values or clarify the 'expected' naming convention, but neither is likely to block correct invocation given the richness of the rest of the description.

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 schema coverage at only 40%, the description meaningfully compensates by defining mate vs align plane-normal directions, red/yellow datum sides, the one-to-three constraint array, and duplicate plane rejection. The top-level expected_* parameters are left mostly to their names, but the schema already describes component_model_file and require_fully_constrained, so the constraint semantics are the main gap and are covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add an existing project part to the current expected Creo assembly,' and immediately scopes the operation to one to three named planar mate/align constraints. The mate/align semantics and side handling clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like creo_add_project_component_fixed or creo_add_project_component_align_insert_three.

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 makes it clear what kind of placement the tool handles, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer that fixed or insert-based placement should go to sibling tools.

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