catia_add_new_part

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the created part starts empty, and it must be saved via catia_save_all before faces become constrainable — a real behavioral dependency an agent must respect.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action ('Create a new empty Part...') is front-loaded before the workflow caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and adequate annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential prerequisite chain (create → model → save → constrain). The only gap is the absence of disambiguation from the near-identical sibling catia_new_part.

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% (both 'parent' and 'part_number' are documented inline with an example), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes 'with its part number' and implies the assembly/sub-assembly target, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Create a new empty Part') plus scope ('inside the assembly (or a sub-assembly), with its part number'). Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools catia_new_part and catia_add_sub_assembly, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

Gives a valuable sequencing rule ('must be modelled and then saved (catia_save_all) before faces can be designated for constraints'), which tells the agent where this step sits in the workflow. However, it never says when to pick this over catia_new_part or catia_add_component, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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