catia_duplicate_component

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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: duplicates share the same reference, each is offset by the step vector, and they arrive unconstrained (requiring follow-up constraint work). It still doesn't mention failure/rollback behavior, but the added detail is meaningful.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the follow-up imperative. No padding. Slightly terse to the point where the follow-up clause reads as an aside rather than grounded guidance.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition gives what an agent needs to call it correctly: what gets created, how it is spaced, and that constraint work follows. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid component reference, negative counts, mode/context requirements).

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 only 33% (only 'step' is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does: 'N more instances' maps count, 'existing component' maps component, and the step shift is described, matching the schema's [dx, dy, dz] default. The default [0,0,50] is left to the schema.

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 (Insert N more instances) on a specific resource (an existing component) and names the native CATIA behavior it mirrors ('Définir une multi-instance'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like catia_add_component (new instance of a reference) and catia_move_component (repositioning).

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?

The trailing 'Constrain them afterwards' implies a workflow step (duplicate, then constrain with catia_coincidence_constraint etc.), which is useful. However, it never says explicitly when to prefer this over catia_add_component or catia_add_new_part, nor any prerequisites such as the component existing in the active assembly.

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