create_slider_mate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It provides valuable behavior specifics: positive travel moves the first instance along the face normal away from the second, swapping instance order reverses slide direction, and optional offsets shift connectors from face centers. These are not expressed in the schema and help the agent predict side-effects. It does not mention return behavior or permissions, but for a creation tool the behavioral details are highly relevant and unusually explicit.

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 compact and each sentence earns its place: purpose, direction semantics, instance-order tip, prerequisite, and offset behavior. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 16-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the areas that are hardest for an agent to infer: how instance ordering determines direction, where face IDs come from, and what offsets do. The schema handles the actual parameter formats, so the description is complete enough for selection and invocation. Missing details like whether min/max limits affect connector positions or what the output represents are not stated, but the core usage context is present.

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 parameters are already described. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that face IDs come from Part Studio body details, that instance order controls slide direction, and that offsets shift connectors from face centers. This is meaningful semantic enrichment rather than repetition.

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 slider (linear motion) mate between two assembly instances.' It explicitly calls out the linear-motion type, which differentiates it from sibling mate tools like create_fastened_mate, create_revolute_mate, and create_cylindrical_mate even without opening their schemas.

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: it is for linear-motion mates, explains that first instance slides relative to the second, and gives a prerequisite: 'Requires face IDs from Part Studio body details.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5, but the linear-motion framing plus the prerequisite is strong, actionable guidance.

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