add_coincident_mate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the operation as mating planar entities, implying assembly modification. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or behavior for non-planar entities. Minimal transparency beyond the basic 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?

Bilingual (Spanish/English) makes the description longer than necessary for an English-speaking AI. While the content is useful, it could be more concise by dropping the Spanish version. Sentences are clear and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on how to obtain entity IDs, what the 'align' parameter does, and expected return value. References to similar tools partially compensate but own content is insufficient.

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%, but the description does not explain individual parameters. It only notes same argument shape as add_concentric_mate, which is indirect. No details on component names, entity IDs, or the 'align' parameter. Fails to compensate for lack of schema descriptions.

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 it adds a coincident mate between two planar entities (faces or planes). It specifies typical uses like flange-to-plate and sub-assembly base plane. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing add_concentric_mate's argument shape and listing related tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from all mate types (e.g., angle, distance).

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?

Provides typical use cases (flange-to-plate, sub-assembly base plane). Mentions same argument shape as add_concentric_mate, guiding agents familiar with that tool. Lists related alternatives: add_mate_by_face_position (convenience without entity names) and stack_components (batch 3 mates). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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