add_mate

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation in the active assembly. The description adds useful context about supported mate types and coordinate/name-based entity selection, but does not mention over-constraint behavior, failure modes, or persistence of the new mate.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by precise entity-specification guidance and a compact supported-type list. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

Output schema existence removes the need to explain return values, and annotations cover safety characteristics. However, for a nine-parameter CAD mating tool with low schema coverage, the description still omits key semantics for alignment, flip, and how entity name and point parameters interact.

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 description coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate. It explains entity selection via 3D assembly-coordinate points or qualified entity names and lists mate types, but leaves alignment, flip, and the relationship between point and name parameters unexplained.

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 and resource: adds a geometric mate constraint between two components in the active assembly. This clearly differentiates it from sketch relations, assembly creation, and component insertion in the sibling list.

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?

Implies when to use it by describing the two entity-specification modes and supported mate types, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as add_sketch_relation.

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