catia_fix_constraint

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds one behavioral rule (first component must be fixed) but doesn't disclose reversibility, whether prior constraints are modified, or the solve cost — that detail lives in the schema's defer_update description, not here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the constraint rule. No wasted words, though it is arguably terse relative to the complexity of the tool.

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 and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what the fixer changes, whether it can conflict with existing constraints, and how it interacts with the assembly solve workflow it references nowhere.

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 all three parameters in detail (including the defer_update solve-cost explanation). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource: fix a component in space via a 'Fixer' constraint. This distinguishes it from the other assembly-constraint siblings (coincidence, contact, offset, angle). It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so sibling differentiation is implied by constraint type rather than stated.

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 description gives one usage rule: the first/reference component of an assembly must be fixed. That is useful context, but there's no guidance on when to use a fixer vs. other constraints, no exclusion criteria, and no explicit mention of an alternative.

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