catia_contact_constraint

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds nothing behavioral beyond a numeric type ID. It does not state that a constraint feature is added to the tree, that the model is solved, or what happens if the geometry does not resolve.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, giving the constraint kind and the type constant. It is efficient, though the parenthetical type ID is arguably noise for an agent.

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 one-line description leaves gaps: whether the constraint is committed immediately, how the deferred solve interacts with catia_update_assembly (that detail lives only in the schema), and what a failure looks like. The rich schema compensates partially but not fully.

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 component/element encoding and the defer_update solve behavior; the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 applies when the structured schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource: a surface contact constraint between two faces of two components, and even pins the internal constraint type (catCstTypeSurfContact = 20). It clearly differentiates from the sibling constraint tools (coincidence, offset, angle) by naming 'surface contact', though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over catia_coincidence_constraint or catia_offset_constraint, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. components must already be placed in an assembly). Usage is only implied by the tool name and the parameter shape.

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