Set mate values

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

With no annotations beyond a title, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that Onshape can silently ignore a value when limits are enabled or the assembly cannot reach the position, and that coupled mates move via relations. It omits permission requirements and whether unspecified degrees of freedom are preserved, which keeps it from a 5.

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 capability statement and the two gotchas are front-loaded with almost no filler, and the em-dash examples make the behavior scannable. It is slightly dense — the failure clause could be split for readability — but every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers units, propagation through relations, implicit return of values, and the silent-failure conditions that would otherwise confuse an agent. Missing pieces are auth prerequisites and the effect on degrees of freedom not named in the values array.

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 doc/ws/elem and each rotation/translation axis with units. The description's unit statement (inches, degrees) repeats what field names and descriptions already convey, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Drive ... to new positions') with tangible examples ('turn a revolute, slide a slider') and notes it can read values back, which implicitly separates it from onshape_get_mate_values. It stops short of explicitly naming the read-only sibling, so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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?

It supplies useful operating context (units are inches and degrees, relations propagate motion to coupled mates) but never states when to prefer this over onshape_get_mate_values or onshape_assembly_mate. Usage is implied by the examples rather than spelled out as a when/when-not rule.

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