place_and_mate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the bistable nature of angle/distance mates, the risk of rebuilds flipping, and the pose_held check that indicates problems. It does not detail permissions or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and rationale. It is structured with a brief intro, detailed reasoning, argument list, and return value description. Every sentence adds value, though a slight tightening could be achieved.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage rationale, argument details, and return keys. It explains the pose_held concept which is critical for interpreting results. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise comprehensive.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter: component_name from get_active_assembly_info, origin_mm/rotation_rows as exact target pose, mates structure with example fields, and pose_tolerance_mm default. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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: to pose a component exactly and then create its mates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_angle_mate or move_component by combining both actions in a specific order, with a rationale about branch-safe mating.

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 branch-safe mating recipe and why the order matters, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context implies it is for precise placement where mate branch stability is critical.

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