catia_add_component

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

Annotations already declare the mutation safety profile (writable, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that the tool returns the new instance name(s) and that those names are intended for later constraints, which helps the agent understand the workflow.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by covering insertion target, optional parent, and return value purpose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return value and the active-assembly context. It does not explain error conditions or prerequisites such as ensuring the file is accessible, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 already documents both file_path and parent. The description reinforces that file(s) are inserted and that insertion may optionally target a sub-assembly, but it adds little parameter syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Insert) and resource (existing CATPart/CATProduct file(s)) with the target context (active assembly) and optional sub-assembly placement. The word 'existing' helps distinguish it from siblings like catia_add_new_part, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 context for what the tool does and notes the optional sub-assembly placement, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives such as catia_add_new_part, catia_add_sub_assembly, or catia_duplicate_component. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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