add_mate_by_face_position

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: resolution of face positions based on normal vectors, coordinate frame details, defaults for Pieza-style parts, and explanation of mate_type, align, distance_mm. No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

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 bilingual (Spanish then English) and well-structured with a clear Args list, example, and explanatory notes. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed but organization is excellent.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is highly complete. It explains all parameters, provides default behavior, gives a concrete example, and explains the coordinate system. No missing critical information.

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?

The input schema has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each of the 7 parameters is explained in the Args section with defaults, allowed values, and context (e.g., coordinate frame for positions, default align). Adds significant meaning beyond schema.

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: creating a mate between two components using face positions. It specifies the verb (add_mate), resource (components), and distinguishes from sibling tools by using position keywords instead of face indices. The example solidifies the 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?

The description explains when to use this tool: as a convenience wrapper to avoid locale-sensitive face-index handling. It provides context about interpreting position keywords in local coordinate frame. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like add_coincident_mate, though the convenience argument implies it.

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