catia_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds only 'Verified live,' which does not disclose mutation side effects, required workbench/selection state, or how the feature is committed. It does not contradict annotations, but it contributes almost no behavioral detail beyond them.

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 front-loads the operation and key inputs. 'Verified live.' is extraneous and the parenthetical nesting makes parsing harder, but overall there is little waste.

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 6-parameter feature-creation tool with no output schema and only 33% schema coverage, the description covers the core geometric recipe but omits prerequisites (active body/geoset, face selection state) and any result/return context. With annotations covering safety flags, this is minimum viable but not complete.

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 coverage is 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains angle is in degrees, direction is pulling direction, face_points define drafted faces, and neutral_face_point/neutral_plane provide the neutral reference. It still leaves face_points' expected geometry (points-on-face? coordinates?) and neutral_plane enum semantics largely implicit, so compensation is partial.

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 modeling operation: creates a draft (Dépouille) on faces using angle, neutral reference, and pull direction. It is not a tautology and clearly names the CATIA feature. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other feature-creation siblings such as fillet/chamfer, but 'draft' is a distinct operation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The agent is told what inputs to supply, not when to choose catia_draft over neighboring feature tools. 'Verified live' does not function as usage guidance.

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