delete_mate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the deletion is reversible, what happens to components the mate constrained, or what the vague phrase "error evidence" refers to. The units sentence (mm, degrees, kg) is behaviorally irrelevant to a delete 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?

Only the first sentence earns its place. The subsequent sentences about public geometry units and inspecting measurements appear to be generic boilerplate that is not actionable for a delete operation, and they push the useful content to the front without follow-through.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with a required, undocumented parameter and no output schema. An agent lacks the information needed to identify the mate to delete or to anticipate the effect on assembly constraints, so the definition is not complete enough for safe invocation.

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 0% and the single required parameter is bare `name: string`. The description never clarifies whether this is a mate name, an ID, a feature name, or a component pair identifier, nor the expected format or where such a name can be discovered. With one undocumented parameter, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 first sentence does state a specific verb and resource ("Delete mate"), so the core action is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as suppress_mate or delete_component, and the two trailing sentences about units and "verified measurements" are unrelated to a deletion and dilute the stated purpose.

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 delete a mate versus suppressing it (suppress_mate) or when a mate disappears implicitly through delete_component. No prerequisites, no ordering considerations (e.g., must the assembly be active), and no statement of when not to use it.

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