create_revolute_mate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a mutating action ('Create'), but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it replaces existing mates), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The core behavior is transparent enough for a create action, but additional details are lacking.

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 succinct, using only three sentences to convey the core purpose, requirements, and offset behavior. No redundant information is present, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 complexity (16 parameters, 7 required), the description covers essential context: it notes the need for face IDs, explains offset behavior, and implies assembly modification. It does not elaborate on return values or how to obtain face IDs, but with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, these omissions are acceptable.

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% with every parameter having a description. The description adds valuable semantic details beyond the schema, especially for offset parameters ('Bare numbers = mm; strings like "10 mm" / "0.5 in" respected'), which clarifies unit handling and prevents misuse.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('a revolute mate'), and the constraint behavior ('first instance rotates relative to the second around the mate connector Z-axis'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling mate tools like create_fastened_mate and create_slider_mate by specifying the rotational nature.

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 some usage context, such as requiring face IDs from Part Studio body details and explaining that offsets shift connectors. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternative mate types (e.g., slider or cylindrical mates), leaving selection partially to inference.

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