stack_components

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool creates three mates, requires opposite face positions on the same axis, and raises ValueError for invalid pairs. It also notes that a single face mate only locks one axis. Missing details like whether previous mates are affected or if the operation can be undone as a group.

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 well-structured with purpose, explanation, parameter descriptions, example, and return value. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, the bilingual text (Spanish and English) makes it slightly verbose than necessary.

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?

No output schema, but the description details the return (Dict with mates list in order). It covers all parameters, includes an example, and explains the behavioral constraints. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, this is very complete.

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%, so the description compensates fully. It specifies that component names come from get_active_assembly_info, and face positions must be from a set of six directions and required to be on opposite ends of the same axis, with an example.

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 goal: 'Fully constrain two components in a stacked arrangement (3 mates in one call).' It specifies the resource (components) and action (stack/full constraint), and distinguishes from single face mate tools like add_mate_by_face_position.

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 the tool (for full constraint in stacking) and contrasts with a single face mate that only locks one axis. It provides typical use cases and an example. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, such as when a distance mate is needed.

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