create_fastened_mate

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral context. It indicates the tool creates a mate (a mutation) and explains the offset behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as what happens on failure or whether the assembly is modified.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and then explaining offsets. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (14 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and offsets. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., a mate feature ID) or what the tool does beyond creating the mate, leaving some ambiguity.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that face IDs come from body details and that offsets are relative to face centers and normals. This helps the agent understand how to use the parameters.

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 'Create a fastened (rigid) mate between two assembly instances,' specifying the action and the resource. It differentiates from sibling mate tools like create_revolute_mate or create_slider_mate by naming the mate type.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires face IDs from Part Studio body details') and optional offsets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when other mate types are more appropriate.

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