create_cylindrical_mate

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior: slide and rotate along the Z-axis, and mentions that offsets shift connectors from face centers. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., impact on assembly, editability, or error conditions). The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and relative motion, followed by a prerequisite and optional behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or wasted words.

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 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: behavior, prerequisite (face IDs), and optional offsets. However, it could be more complete by clarifying the coordinate system (e.g., how the Z-axis is defined) or the required face geometry (e.g., cylindrical faces). It is moderately complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that offsets shift from face centers and that face IDs come from Part Studio body details. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions, which are already present. No further parameter details are needed.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a cylindrical (slide + rotate) mate between two assembly instances.' It specifies the relative motion (slide and rotate along Z-axis), which distinguishes it from other mate types like fastened, revolute, or slider. The verb 'Create' and resource 'cylindrical mate' are explicit and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., revolute or slider mates). The description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires face IDs from Part Studio body details') but does not clarify contexts or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between sibling mate creation tools.

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