add_angle_mate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the mate is fixed, the angle is in degrees with right-hand-rule orientation, and that the solver may reject if entities are coplanar. It describes the return value (metadata including angle_deg). It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but for a mate creation tool, the behavioral traits are adequately covered.

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 well-structured with bilingual text, a clear purpose statement, usage context, parameter notes, gotcha, and related tool. It front-loads the key information. While slightly verbose due to bilingual repetition, the structure aids readability and each section adds value.

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 6 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and constraints but lacks full parameter details (e.g., align, entity IDs). It does mention the return value. The gotcha and related tool add context. However, without schema coverage, the description could be more comprehensive for agent decision-making.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the angle_deg parameter (positive per right-hand-rule) and states 'Other args: same as add_concentric_mate,' which is helpful but vague. It does not describe align, component_name, or entity_id parameters. Thus, it adds partial value but leaves significant gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mate de ángulo — fuerza un ángulo fijo entre dos entidades' and 'Add an angle mate (fixed angular offset) between two entities.' It specifies the resource (angle mate) and the action (add). It distinguishes from sibling mates (e.g., concentric, distance) by focusing on angular relationships and providing typical use cases like chain-link articulation and hinge angles.

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?

The description includes typical use cases (e.g., hinge angles, lever positions) and constraints (entities must be planar or axes). It warns against applying between two concentric cylindrical faces and mentions a gotcha about coplanar entities. It references a related tool (add_mate_by_face_position) but does not explicitly contrast with all sibling tools. The guidance is clear and practical, though not exhaustive.

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