add_mate_by_face_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains how face positions are resolved to actual faces based on local coordinate frames, including axis mapping for each keyword. It also describes default behavior and mate types. It does not mention side effects or undo capacity, but this is acceptable for a creation 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 concise yet comprehensive, using clear sections (intro, args explanation, example). Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. The structure aids quick scanning for key information.

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 and no output schema, the description covers all aspects: parameter semantics, relationships, coordinate frame interpretation, and a practical example. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: component names from get_active_assembly_info, face positions with axis mappings, mate_type with options, distance_mm condition, and align with defaults. The example ties everything together.

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 creates a mate between two components using relative face positions (top/bottom etc.), differentiating it from other mate tools that require entity names or indices. The verb 'creates a mate' and specific resource handling are explicit.

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 the tool is a convenience wrapper to avoid locale-sensitive face naming, and provides an example for stacking. It implies when not to use (if you have exact entity names or need precise face selection), but does not explicitly list alternatives or when to use other mate tools. However, 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.