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 only describes what it does without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or consequences (e.g., mate suppression). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, avoiding unnecessary details. The bilingual format is efficient for the context.

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?

Without output schema, annotations, or parameter descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps. It covers purpose and typical use but lacks behavioral, parameter, and result information. For a tool with 5 parameters and no schema coverage, more is needed.

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 description does not explain any parameter meaning. It only notes 'same argument shape as add_concentric_mate', which is vague. The 'align' parameter's default is unelaborated. Description adds minimal value beyond the 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 adds a coincident mate between two planar entities, with concrete examples (flange-to-plate, sub-assembly base plane). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_concentric_mate and add_mate_by_face_position by noting same argument shape and naming a convenience alternative.

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 (autopartes, specific scenarios) and references to related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., non-planar entities) or provide exclusion criteria.

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