Add a mate connector

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

Annotations carry no readOnly/destructive hints, so the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It does convey the creation of an implicit feature and its role in mating, but it doesn't mention side effects, whether it modifies an existing feature, or any prerequisites beyond the instance.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is first, and the crucial downstream connection to onshape_assembly_mate is stated in the second sentence.

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?

Provides the essential selection and usage context: placing an implicit mate connector on an instance and linking the resulting feature id to assembly mating. Given the well-documented schema and lack of an output schema, this is largely sufficient, though it could state the mutating effect more explicitly.

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 fully documents all parameters, defaults, and required fields. The description adds context about inference types being used for placement, but does not need to repeat parameter details.

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?

States a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('implicit mate connector on an instance'), and clarifies the mechanism ('by inference (CENTROID, TOP, ...)'). It also distinguishes itself from the related sibling onshape_assembly_mate by explaining the connector's feature id is what that tool then joins.

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 contextual guidance: use this tool to create the mate connector that onshape_assembly_mate later consumes. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the assembly-mating workflow is evident.

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