add_mate

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the unit convention (mm/degrees/kg) and a vague note about inspecting measurements and error evidence; it says nothing about what state is mutated, whether existing mates are affected, or what mate types are valid. Below the lowered bar set by annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, so it is easy to scan. However "independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" is positional filler and "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" is vague enough to not earn its space given the omitted parameter 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?

For an 8-parameter, non-idempotent, destructive assembly-mate tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is far from complete. The most consequential gaps are the valid mate_type values, how faces/components are referenced, and what the flip flag does.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. The unit sentence does clarify that distance_mm and angle_deg are in mm/degrees, which is genuinely useful, but comp_a/comp_b/face_a/face_b naming conventions and especially the unbounded mate_type string (default "coincident", no enum) are left entirely 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?

"Add mate" names a verb and resource, and the addition of "through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" situates it as an assembly-constraint operation. But it never says what a mate relates (two components via faces), and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like delete_mate or suppress_mate beyond the verb. Minimum viable.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. components must be inserted into an active assembly), and no mention of alternatives among the many assembly siblings. The sentence "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" gestures at post-call verification but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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