catia_circ_pattern

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the safety profile is already known. The description usefully adds that count includes the original and that spacing defaults to a complete crown, but it does not disclose tree/specification side effects of creating the pattern or any prerequisites about an active feature.

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?

A single dense sentence pair with the operation and axis choice front-loaded and no filler. Some parenthetical asides (the French term, the zx=Y example) make it slightly packed, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key calls an agent must get right: which axis variants exist, that count includes the original, and the spacing default. Remaining gaps are about selection prerequisites and post-creation behavior rather than the core 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 every parameter including the axis_plane→Z/Y/X mapping. The description restates that mapping and the default spacing, adding consistency but little information beyond the structured fields; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 operation (circular pattern of a feature) plus the precise axis semantics, and the parenthetical French name mirrors the CATIA UI term an agent or user would recognize. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling operations like catia_rect_pattern and catia_mirror.

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?

Explains the two mutually exclusive ways to define the rotation axis (origin-plane normal via axis_plane, or cylindrical face via axis_face_point) and the count/spacing defaults, which is strong context. It stops short of explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance (e.g. linear pattern or mirror alternatives).

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