add_mate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it well. It discloses the verification step ('result is measured back from the geometry after the rebuild and rejected if it is not what was asked'), the flip behavior to resolve mirror-side solutions, and the special face selection syntax ('+y:inner'). These go beyond basic operation and give the agent accurate expectations about tool behavior and validation.

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 concise paragraphs. The first sentence delivers the core purpose immediately, and the second paragraph efficiently enumerates parameter semantics without redundancy. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information—no filler, no repetition, and no unnecessary detail. The structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 4 required) and zero existing annotations or output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter semantics, explains the special face selection mode, describes the mate-type options, and warns about the verification behavior. There is no obvious missing operational context that an agent would need to call it correctly, though it doesn't mention error handling or prerequisites (such as components already being present in the assembly), but those are arguably implied.

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 parameter descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains the meaning and format of comp_a/comp_b, face_a/face_b (including direction and inner/outer cavity syntax), mate_type with enumerated values, distance_mm usage, and flip. It even gives concrete examples like 'Bed-1'. This fully clarifies the parameters beyond the bare type definitions.

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 clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Mate a planar face of one component to a planar face of another.' It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools (only mating tool among many additive geometry tools) and immediately establishes what the tool does. The scope is precise and action-oriented.

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?

While the description explains how to use parameters in detail, it does not explicitly state when to prefer add_mate over alternatives like set_component_transform, nor does it give exclusions (e.g., 'not for non-planar faces' or 'use only when you need a mate constraint'). The usage context is implicit but not contrasted with other tools, so the agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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