create_cylindrical_mate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it explains that the first instance slides and rotates relative to the second along the mate connector Z-axis, and that optional offsets shift connectors from face centers. It does not disclose return behavior or failure modes, so it is not a 5, but it is substantially transparent for a mutation operation.

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?

Three tight sentences deliver the core purpose, relative motion, prerequisite face IDs, and offset behavior without restating schema details. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes unique value.

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 the high parameter count and lack of an output schema or annotations, the description plus fully documented schema provide enough context for correct invocation: required IDs, instance roles, motion axis, offsets, and limits are all covered. A minor gap is that the return value and error behavior are not described, but that does not block selection or invocation.

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 already documents all 16 parameters with 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds useful cross-parameter context by clarifying that offsets shift connectors from face centers and that motion occurs along the Z-axis, which helps the agent understand how the optional offset and limit parameters relate to the mate geometry.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Create a cylindrical (slide + rotate) mate between two assembly instances.' It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling mate tools by defining it as slide + rotate, so an agent can tell it apart from create_revolute_mate, create_slider_mate, and create_fastened_mate.

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 provides clear usage context by describing the kinematic behavior and the prerequisite 'Requires face IDs from Part Studio body details.' It implies when this tool is appropriate versus the revolute/slider alternatives, though it does not explicitly state exclusion criteria or name alternatives.

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