add_mate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a genuinely important limitation: entities are selected by feature name, so only reference planes/axes can be mated and specific faces/edges cannot be enumerated by this adapter. That pre-empts a likely failure mode. It omits what happens on failure or any permission/rebuild side effects, so not a 5.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then mate-type semantics, then the entity-selection caveat. No sentence is wasted and the most important constraint sits in its own paragraph.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the key invocation constraint (entity naming). For a mutation tool with zero annotations it could say more about defaults or failure behavior, but it is complete enough to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every field carries its own description plus defaults, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds conceptual meaning for coincident/concentric/distance but no syntax or value guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope ('Mate two components in the active assembly'), then enumerates the positioning behaviors (coincident, concentric, distance). An agent can distinguish this from sibling generators like generate_vba_assembly_mates without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the conditions for the mate types (stack/align planes, line up axes, hold a gap) and gives a clear constraint on which entities are selectable. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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