fusion_joint

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

The description discloses the core behavior: creating a joint with various types and axis options. Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, which aligns with the description. It adds context beyond annotations by explaining the parameter effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail parameters. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words or 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?

The description covers the essential aspects of creating a joint, including types, axis, and face options. However, it does not mention return values or potential error conditions, which would be helpful given there is no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: type (rigid/revolute/slider/cylindrical/planar), axis (x/y/z), face_one/face_two (planar face indices), and the required component names. It clarifies default values and usage.

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 joint between two components.' It specifies the verb (Create) and the resource (joint), and lists the types and parameters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fusion_as_built_joint' by focusing on creating joints with explicit types and faces.

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 provides clear guidance on how to use the tool, including default behavior (joins at origins) and optional face indices. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond the implicit presence of sibling tools.

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