create_mate_connector

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers substantial behavioral detail: offsets are interpreted in the connector's LOCAL frame, flipping primary reverses other axes via the right-hand rule, and this changes how translations map to world space. This goes well beyond a typical create-tool description. It stops short of disclosing side effects like feature-tree footprint, idempotency when a connector already exists on the face, or failure conditions, but the geometric behavior is exceptionally well covered.

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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, placement and coordinate semantics in sentence two, and the subtle flip behavior in sentence three. Every sentence carries load-bearing information for correct invocation.

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 geometrically complex tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the hard parts thoroughly: local coordinate semantics and flip interaction. Gaps remain: no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., connector ID) since there is no output schema, no failure conditions (e.g., non-planar faces), and no clarification of what 'explicit' contrasts with. These are meaningful but secondary to the core geometric behavior, which is fully specified.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining that offsetX/Y/Z are interpreted in the connector's LOCAL coordinate system (X/Y in-plane, Z along normal) — the schema only says 'offset from face center' without specifying the frame. It also enriches flipPrimary by explaining the right-hand-rule axis reversal and its world-space consequences, which the schema's 'Flip the primary (Z) axis direction' does not convey.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Create') and an explicit resource ('mate connector on a face of an assembly instance'). It distinguishes itself from the mate-constraint siblings (create_fastened_mate, create_revolute_mate, etc.) by making clear this creates a reference connector, not a mate constraint. Additional placement details (face center, Z-axis along normal) sharpen the purpose further.

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 operational context — the connector is anchored at a face center with axis orientation — which implies when it would be used. However, it never explicitly routes the agent between this tool and its alternatives; for example, it does not say 'use this to define an explicit reference frame before applying a mate, when automatic connector placement is insufficient.' The word 'explicit' hints at such a contrast but does not state it.

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