catia_drawing_create

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent but non-destructive mutation; the description adds meaningful state effects beyond that — the drawing is left open and active and nothing is saved — plus the warnings field in the return and the plan-then-add_view handoff. It does not specify required permissions or license prerequisites, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded with the core capability; the second gives the workflow; the third explains the auto behavior; a short tail covers units, return shape, and open/unsaved state. It is dense and longer than most, but nearly every clause carries distinct information rather than restating the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned JSON keys ({drawing, sheet, scale, projection, frame, plan, warnings}) and the open/unsaved side effect. Given 10 parameters and the auto-planning complexity, this is close to complete, though it omits permission/auth requirements and whether an existing open drawing affects the call.

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 already 90%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the auto path (sheet/scale='auto' needs source, measures views, picks smallest sheet and largest scale >= min_scale) and notes that source is 'remembered for add_view' and that the returned plan drives position='auto'. Units (mm) and the view_from convention are also clarified.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and immediately enumerates the distinguishing attributes (ISO 5457 sheet A0-A4, ISO 5455 scale, projection method, 0.7 mm frame with 20/10 mm margins). It also situates itself in the workflow by naming the follow-up drawing tools, so an agent can tell catia_drawing_create apart from catia_drawing_add_view or title_block without opening schemas.

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?

Prescribes the exact downstream sequence (add_view, title_block, export_pdf, check) and states the prerequisite for the 'auto' path: source must be an OPEN CATPart/CATProduct. It does not name an alternative drawing-creation tool or explicitly say when not to use it, but for a creation entry point the sequencing guidance is clear.

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