catia_close_sketch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful workflow context (mode transition back to Part Design), but does not disclose failure behavior when no sketch is open or the consequence of the non-idempotent nature.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema lifecycle tool this is nearly complete: it covers the action, the resulting state, and the workflow position. It could state what happens if there is no active sketch, which is the one plausible edge case an agent would hit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema. No parameter-level guidance is needed or missing.

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 ('Close') plus resource ('the active sketch') and the resulting mode switch ('return to Part Design'), so it is distinguishable from the catia_create_sketch / catia_sketch_* family. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly gives the sequencing rule: called after finishing sketch geometry, before applying 3D features such as catia_pad or catia_pocket. Clear context for when to invoke, though it does not say what happens if no sketch is active or whether it can be safely skipped.

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