catia_drawing_generate_dimensions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates state; the description adds genuinely new context — that the generated set is incomplete (overall sizes and hole positions missing), that dimensions are drawn green, and that a JSON summary is returned per view with type/value/mm. It does not mention undo/reversibility or whether rerunning duplicates dimensions, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and outcome, with the caveat and the sibling hand-off following in a logical order. It is dense but each clause carries information; the parenthetical return-format note is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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 helpfully explains the return shape (JSON per view with type, value, mm) and warns about incomplete output, which an agent needs to plan around. Prerequisites and idempotency/duplicate-run behavior are unaddressed, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Only one optional parameter ('drawing'), and its schema description already documents the default-to-active-document behavior at 100% coverage. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 verb and target ('Run CATIA's Generate Dimensions on the active sheet') and immediately describes what it produces (dimensions driven by 3D constraints such as pad lengths and hole diameters). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling catia_drawing_add_dimension, which handles the dimensions this tool leaves out.

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?

Clearly frames the workflow: this tool auto-generates a partial set, and 'complete the drawing with catia_drawing_add_dimension' names the follow-up alternative. It could go further by stating prerequisites (an existing sheet/view must be active) or when to skip auto-generation entirely, so it stops short of a 5.

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