sw_add_mate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the mate constrains assembly degrees of freedom, that it mutates the active document, whether mates are reversible/removable, or what errors occur for invalid entity pairs.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb leads and the enumeration is tight. The parenthetical lists are dense but each item earns its place by naming covered mate types.

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 12-parameter tool with 15 mate types where valid parameters vary by type, no output schema and only 58% schema coverage, a single sentence is not enough. Missing are per-type parameter requirements, entity selection rules, and what a successful mate returns or how failures surface.

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?

At 58% schema coverage across 12 parameters, the description contributes a little by grouping mate types into families, implying symmetric/width need extra_entities and limit distance/angle use min/max values. But it never maps flip, alignment, doc, or which parameters are required per mate type, leaving several parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 (mate) and resource (components) and enumerates the mate families the tool covers, which maps directly onto the 15-value mate_type enum. An agent can tell this is the assembly-mating tool; no sibling (insert, interference, explode) competes for the same action, though the description never says so explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the family grouping (standard / advanced / mechanical) hints at which mate type to choose, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over sw_insert_component or sw_interference, and no prerequisite such as needing an active assembly with existing components to mate.

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