create_fastened_mate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose key behaviors: it creates a rigid mate, requires face IDs, and explains how offsets shift connectors in the face's local coordinate frame. However, it omits operational consequences such as failure modes, whether mate connectors are created implicitly, or what the tool returns on success.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides the critical prerequisite and offset behavior. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation knowledge: purpose, mate type, required face IDs, and offset coordinate semantics. It does not detail return values or failure behavior, but the rich parameter schema and focused description make the tool adequately understandable for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining that offsets are applied in the face's local XY plane with Z along the normal, and by clarifying that face IDs come from Part Studio body details. This extra semantic context helps an agent correctly populate parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a fastened (rigid) mate between two assembly instances.' The term 'fastened (rigid)' clearly distinguishes this mate type from sibling tools like create_revolute_mate or create_slider_mate. The scope is precise and immediately actionable.

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 gives clear usage context: face IDs from Part Studio body details are required, and offsets are optional for positioning connectors. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternative mate tools, but the 'fastened (rigid)' qualifier and face-placement requirements provide enough context for an agent to infer its intended use.

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