Creates an angle mate between two references (faces or axes) in a CAD assembly, specifying the desired angle to define their relative orientation.
Create a angle mate between two references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | No | ||
| b | No | ||
| angle | No | ||
| axis_a | No | ||
| axis_b | No | ||
| face_a | No | ||
| face_b | No | ||
| assembly_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. 'Create' implies a mutation, but it says nothing about permissions required, whether the mate is persistent, what happens if references are invalid, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a state-changing assembly operation.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is drastically under-specified for an 8-parameter assembly mate tool. Conciseness here comes at the cost of necessary detail, making it poorly structured for an agent’s needs.
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 complexity of an angle mate operation, 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits required parameter details, behavioral implications, and any distinction from related mate tools, leaving an agent unable to invoke it correctly.
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 schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention a single one. It vaguely refers to 'two references' but never clarifies which parameters (a, b, face_a, face_b, axis_a, axis_b, angle, assembly_id) correspond to the references or how to specify the angle. The description fails entirely to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('angle mate'), which is enough to understand the basic operation. However, it does not differentiate this mate type from siblings like mate_coincident, mate_concentric, mate_distance, or mate_parallel, so an agent cannot easily tell when to prefer this tool over those.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use an angle mate versus other mate types, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it creates an angle mate, which is tautological and offers no selection help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.